The following statement was released today by Freddie Mac (OTCQB: FMCC) and is attributed to David Lowman, executive vice president, single-family business:

"Freddie Mac is meeting the milestones that will make the Single Security and a stronger housing finance system a reality. We have completed joint system-to-system testing with Common Securitization Solutions (CSS) as preparation for using their Common Securitization Platform for a range of activities related to Freddie Mac Participation Certificates (PC) and Giant PC issuance. The progress charted in the Federal Housing Finance Agency's (FHFA) latest update is leading to a more liquid TBA market and a stronger housing finance system. We look forward to working with FHFA, Fannie Mae, CSS and other stakeholders to reach the remaining milestones and bring the Single Security to market."

Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Today Freddie Mac is making home possible for approximately one in four home borrowers and is the largest source of financing for multifamily housing. Additional information is available at www.FreddieMac.com, Twitter @FreddieMac and Freddie Mac's blog www.FreddieMac.com/blog.

Mortgage Rates Little ChangedFont size: A | A | A
10:00 AM ET 7/14/16 | Marketwired
MCLEAN, VA--(Marketwired - Jul 14, 2016) - Freddie Mac (OTCQB: FMCC) today released the results of its Primary Mortgage Market Survey® (PMMS®), showing average fixed mortgage rates holding steady with the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage remaining near its all-time record low of 3.31 percent in November of 2012.

News Facts

30-year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) averaged 3.42 percent with an average 0.5 point for the week ending July 14, 2016, up from last week when it averaged 3.41 percent. A year ago at this time, the 30-year FRM averaged 4.09 percent.

15-year FRM this week averaged 2.72 percent with an average 0.5 point, down from last week when it averaged 2.74 percent. A year ago at this time, the 15-year FRM averaged 3.25 percent.

5-year Treasury-indexed hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) averaged 2.76 percent this week with an average 0.4 point, up from last week when it averaged 2.68 percent. A year ago, the 5-year ARM averaged 2.96.

Average commitment rates should be reported along with average fees and points to reflect the total upfront cost of obtaining the mortgage. Visit the following link for the Definitions. Borrowers may still pay closing costs which are not included in the survey.

Quote Attributed to Sean Becketti, chief economist, Freddie Mac.

"We describe the last few weeks as A Tale of Two Rates. Immediately following the Brexit vote, U.S. Treasury yields plummeted to all-time lows. This week, markets stabilized and the 10-year Treasury yield rebounded sharply. In contrast, the 30-year mortgage rate declined after the Brexit vote, but only by half as much as the 10-year Treasury yield. This week, the 30-year fixed rate barely budged, rising just one basis point to 3.42 percent. This pattern suggests that mortgage rates are likely to remain low throughout the summer."

Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Today Freddie Mac is making home possible for one in four home borrowers and is the largest source of financing for multifamily housing. Additional information is available at FreddieMac.com, Twitter @FreddieMac and Freddie Mac's blog FreddieMac.com/blog.

Image Available: http://www2.marketwire.com/mw/frame_mw?attachid=3033713

this 15th final brief, 6weeks may trail with jury maybe longer

worst shares fall 1.5$ best 150s ...I will take 80$ , Ackman will take 20 i guess!

The Dodd-Frank Act’s designation authority seeks to achieve two fundamentally
irreconcilable objectives. On the one hand, the Dodd-Frank Act tries to constrain risktaking
through stricter regulation of large, complex financial institutions. But the
designation of these firms undermines market discipline because it sends a clear signal that
government regulators think these firms are “too big to fail”; after all, that is the reason for
subjecting these firms to “heightened prudential standards.”122 Designation thus generates
even greater risk-taking and moral hazard, because creditors and counterparties will not
monitor the firm as scrupulously as they otherwise would, knowing that government
regulators will not allow the firm to fail, which means that they will not suffer losses.123 Or
as noted financial analyst Josh Rosner testified before the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee, “Title I and Title II create a special class of GSE-like companies that benefit
from an implied government guarantee.”124
http://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/financial_choice_act_comprehensive_outline.pdf

No notice, no public comment period, no public debate, and no transparency. That's how HUD made this decision.

Hensarling: Attack on FHA’s Insurance Fund Must be Stopped

No notice, no public comment period, no public debate, and no transparency. That's how HUD made this decision.https://t.co/fQwygbqcIG

— Financial Services GOP (@FinancialCmte) July 13, 2016

It's meaning there are enough clue for trial!

"In the ongoing litigation saga of the shareholders of Fannie Mae versus the Government, the Government recently filed another Motion to Dismiss most of the suits by plaintiffs filed in the Court of Federal Claims. Those claims allege that the execution of the Net Worth Sweep was a taking of the value of plaintiffs' shares in Fannie. The Government argues that the plaintiffs did not own the shares at the time of the alleged taking and hence are not entitled to any recovery. The plaintiffs responded with a Motion to Stay the Government's Motion to Dismiss arguing judicial economy and that, in any case, takings law is not as clear cut as the Government implied. The Government then filed a..."

lift that!

House Financial Services Committee Releases Draft of Bill to Replace Dodd-Frank
BY ETHAN G. OSTROFF AND ALICE GRABE ON JULY 13, 2016
POSTED IN ALL CFS BLOG ENTRIES, DEBT BUYERS & COLLECTORS, FEATURED POSTS

On June 23, a discussion draft of “The Financial CHOICE Act” was released by the House Financial Services Committee. A primary purpose of this bill is to replace the Dodd-Frank Act, including reforming financial institution regulations and significantly changing the structure and authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Specifically, the CFPB’s leadership would change to a bipartisan, five-person commission, with a name change to the “Consumer Financial Opportunity Commission”, or “CFOC,” to reflect a mission of both consumer protection and maintaining competitive markets. The commission would be required to establish a procedure for issuing written advisory opinions. The CFOC’s regulations would be “subject to the normal congressional appropriations process,” and its “authority to ban bank products or services … deem[ed] ‘abusive’ and … authority to prohibit arbitration” would be repealed, along with its ability to prohibit or limit the use of arbitration agreements. Additionally, the Act would require the CFOC “to verify information in the [Consumer Complaint Database] before it may be released to the general public.” This database has been under scrutiny and, as we reported, it is also the subject of the proposed CFPB Data Accountability Act.

Furthermore, the Financial Choice Act would prohibit the “use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail out financial firms or creditors.” The Act would also incorporate “regulatory relief bills for community financial institutions” such as the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act to end Operation Choke Point, which we previously discussed.

Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) stated in an official press release that “[w]e must instead offer all Americans greater opportunities to raise their standards of living and achieve financial independence by replacing Dodd-Frank with real reforms that work.”

This draft legislation follows a summary that was released by Hensarling last month, which indicated that a series of CFPB reforms would be included. The portions of the discussion draft of the bill addressing proposed reforms to the CFPB can be located in the section of title III entitled “Empowering Americans to Achieve Financial Independence.”

We will continue to follow the progress of this proposed legislation.

http://www.consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com/2016/07/house-financial-services-committee-releases-draft-of-bill-to-replace-dodd-frank/

In Other Financial News of Crooks, Judge Rules Banks Helped Cause Crash of '08

Remember the big, conveniently timed Crash of '08, the one that helped propel a malevolent nobody from the Chicago Machine into the Oval Office? Yeah, that one:

Many on Wall Street have long argued that the banks did not generally break the law when they packaged shoddy mortgages and sold them to investors in the lead-up to the financial crisis of 2008. But on Monday, in the starkest of terms, a federal judge dealt a strong blow to that version of history. She ruled that two banks misled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in selling them mortgage bonds that contained numerous errors and misrepresentations.
“The magnitude of falsity, conservatively measured, is enormous,” Judge Denise L. Cote of Federal District Court in Manhattan wrote in a scathing 361-page decision.

No sheetrock, Sherlock. And yet by and large the reckless criminals who brought down the American economy have skated on this one, first bailed out by the taxpayers and then merrily enjoying a rising Dow while the rest of the country suffers.

The ruling came in a closely watched case brought by the government against the Japanese bank Nomura Holdings and Royal Bank of Scotland. They were the only two of 18 financial firms that took their case to trial, arguing that it was the housing crash, and not deceptive loan documents, that caused the bonds to collapse.
The other firms — including Goldman Sachs and Bank of America — settled, together paying nearly $18 billion in penalties but avoiding a detailed public airing of their conduct.

Gee, I wonder why... couldn't have anything to do with the fact that among Obama's many nicknames is this one: the president from Goldman Sachs.

Judge Cote’s ruling described a dangerous and toxic period in the American economy. As house prices were soaring, Wall Street banks were purchasing high-risk mortgages and then bundling them into bonds that were sold around the world. As this huge mortgage machine churned on, the quality of the loans plunged.
Some financiers and housing industry analysts have since asserted that, while Wall Street was acting out of greed and with a cavalier disregard for risk, it did not act deceptively. But Judge Cote, in her order, took a dim view of the banks’ conduct. She said that loan guidelines were “systematically disregarded” and found “disturbing examples” showing that Nomura was willing to package and sell defective loans.

“This case is complex from almost any angle, but at its core there is a single, simple question. Did defendants accurately describe the home mortgages in the offering documents for the securities they sold that were backed by those mortgages?” she wrote in her decision. “Following trial, the answer to that question is clear. The offering documents did not correctly describe the mortgage loans.”

For the best primer -- from a liberal perspective! -- read my friend Les Leopold's book on the subject: The Looting of America. You'll be glad you did.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/in-other-financial-news-of-crooks-judges-rules-banks-helped-cause-crash-of-08

Happy Birthday Dodd-Frank!
Six years after it was passed, many of the reforms enacted by the Dodd-Frank bill are in place. So, how does it look? What does it mean for real estate? And what’s in store?

http://observer.com/2016/07/happy-birthday-dodd-frank/

SA write up and down , I only trust 50% .

NRMLA awards New American Funding's Ellen Skaggs Special Reverse Mortgage Designation
TUSTIN, Calif., July 12, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- New American Funding, a national mortgage banker, today announces that Ellen Skaggs, Reverse National Production Manager has earned the status of Certified Reverse Mortgage Professional (CRMP). National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association (NRMLA) awarded the certification to Skaggs after she passed a rigorous exam and background check, thereby demonstrating a competency in the area of reverse mortgages and a dedication to uphold the highest ethical and professional standards. Only 132 individuals nationwide currently have the CRMP credential.

To qualify for the designation, applicants must have originated reverse mortgages for a minimum of three years or personally closed at least 50 loans, earned 12 continuing education credits, completed NRMLA's Ethics Course, passed a comprehensive exam, and a background check. The certification is valid for three years, during which time designees must earn 8 CE credits annually to be re-certified.

Continue Reading http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nrmla-awards-new-american-fundings-ellen-skaggs-special-reverse-mortgage-designation-300297411.html

Press Releases


Too Big to Jail: Internal Treasury Documents Reveal Why Justice Department Did Not Prosecute HSBC


Washington, July 11, 2016 -


The House Financial Services Committee on Monday released a staff report of its investigation into the U.S. Department of Justice’s decision not to prosecute HSBC or any of its executives or employees for serious violations of U.S. anti-money laundering laws and related offenses.
The Committee initiated its investigation in March 2013. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of the Treasury failed to comply with the Committee’s requests to obtain relevant documents, necessitating the issuance of subpoenas to both agencies.

Approximately three years after its initial inquiries, the Committee finally obtained copies of internal Treasury records showing that DOJ has not been forthright with Congress or the American people concerning its decision to decline to prosecute HSBC.

These documents show that:

Senior DOJ leadership, including then-Attorney General Eric Holder, overruled an internal recommendation by DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section to prosecute HSBC because of DOJ leadership’s concern that prosecuting the bank would have serious adverse consequences on the financial system.

Notwithstanding Attorney General Holder’s personal demand that HSBC agree to DOJ’s “take-it-or-leave-it” deferred prosecution agreement deal by November 14, 2012, HSBC appears to have successfully negotiated with DOJ for significant alterations to the deferred prosecution agreement’s terms in the weeks following the Attorney General’s deadline.

DOJ and federal financial regulators were rushing at what one Treasury official described as “alarming speed” to complete their investigations and enforcement actions involving HSBC in order to beat the New York Department of Financial Services.

In its haste to complete its enforcement action against HSBC, DOJ transmitted settlement numbers to HSBC before consulting with Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control to ensure that the settlement amount accurately reflected the full degree of HSBC’s sanctions violations.

The involvement of the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority in the U.S. government’s investigations and enforcement actions relating to HSBC, a British-domiciled institution, appears to have hampered the U.S. government’s investigations and influenced DOJ’s decision not to prosecute HSBC.

Attorney General Holder misled Congress concerning DOJ’s reasons for not bringing a criminal prosecution against HSBC.

DOJ to date has failed to produce any records pertaining to its prosecutorial decision making with respect to HSBC or any large financial institution, notwithstanding the Committee’s multiple requests for this information and a congressional subpoena requiring Attorney General Lynch to timely produce these records to the Committee.

Attorney General Lynch and Secretary Lew remain in default on their legal obligation to produce the subpoenaed records to the Committee.

DOJ’s and Treasury’s longstanding efforts to impede the Committee’s investigation may constitute contempt and obstruction of Congress.
The Committee is releasing this report to shed light on whether DOJ is making prosecutorial decisions based on the size of financial institutions and DOJ’s belief that such prosecutions could negatively impact the economy.



Print version of this document

I am Sharing infomations..a lot ppl dont know why fnf stock went down yesterday , keep your risky idea for your self .., thanx but no thanx!

Senators Warn Watt on Future of GSEs

http://www.nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/59389/senators-warn-watt-future-gses

Fannie Mae: The Wrong Kind of Panic from Bob Corker
http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/07/fannie-mae-panic-bob-corker/

Once again, it bears repeating that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 empowered FHFA, not Congress, to “preserve and conserve” the assets of the GSEs and to take whatever steps were needed to return them to a “sound and solvent” condition so they could resume their traditional marketplace role. No doubt, reforms were and are needed, and Congress and the Administration had an obligation to work together on that. Along the way, however, the Net Worth Sweep was implemented. This empowered Treasury officials and lawmakers who shared a desire to shut down the GSEs to implement ways to hollow out their business.

I like part end "Too big to fail" part??

Senators Who Advocate Shorting GSEs Fear Unilateral Action That Ends Conservatorship

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3987222-senators-advocate-shorting-gses-fear-unilateral-action-ends-conservatorship

New briefs are due from the class action plaintiffs on July 1. The government has until July 8 to respond. A final reply briefs from the plaintiffs is due July 15.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/06/21/a-surprise-twist-in-the-fannie-and-freddie-appeal/

Keep quiet ...don't wake Coker up...lol

US rescues giant mortgage lenders
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7603754.stm
In today's global economy, the sharp rise in worldwide banking stocks following the US government's takeover of troubled mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was to be expected.
With the US Treasury moving to shore up the US housing market, its action will inevitably also offer a knock-on boost to mortgage provision around the world.
In time it should help to restore both confidence and available funds in the global credit market.
It may also help the US avoid a consumer-led recession that would drag down the global economy, starting with firms that export to the United States.
Direct investment
Overseas commercial banks - especially those in China and Japan - have directly invested billions of dollars in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

It showed the positive attitude of the US government, we welcome it
ICBC spokesman Xie Taifeng
In addition, foreign banks have billions of dollars invested in US mortgage securities - effectively debt packages resold by US banks - that are guaranteed by the two agencies.
It was the high level of bad debt in these securities that caused the global credit crunch, as banks around the world realised that they had made significant losses on these investments.
As a result, the US government's bail out of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - and the hope that it can see normality return to the American mortgage market - is an immediate and direct boost to a great many global lenders.
It will also inevitably greatly relieve global central banks, such as the Bank of England and the European Central Bank, which since last year have had to help UK and European lenders affected by the global credit squeeze.
In the UK, one lender, Northern Rock, ultimately had to be nationalised.
'Positively guarantee'
Chinese banks have been among the first to welcome the US government's move.
Bank of China branch
Chinese banks have invested heavily in the US
Flush with cash due to China's economic boom, China's commercial lenders have in recent years become the biggest overseas investors in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as part of their wider purchase of US bonds.
The US government's action makes both this direct and indirect Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae debt far more secure.
China's three largest lenders - Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), Construction Bank of China, and Bank of China - have $10.5bn (£5.9bn) directly invested in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae between them.
"We think this is good for Fannie and Freddie because the US government used to be invisibly guaranteeing them, but now it is taking explicit action to positively guarantee them," said Bank of China spokesman Wang Zhaowen.
ICBC spokesman Xie Taifeng added: "It showed the positive attitude of the US government, we welcome it."
'Eases worries'
The US government's move has also been warmly welcomed in Japan, which after China is the second-biggest direct overseas investor in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
"I think it will have a positive impact on the world economy, as it eases worries over the US economy through more stable financial markets in the US," said Japan's Finance Minister Bunmei Ibuki.
Japan's three largest banks - Mitsubishi UFJ Financial, Mizuho Financial and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial - had about $43.29bn in US mortgage debt securities, including those controlled by Fannie Mae and Freddie May by the end of March.
Japan's government, like its Chinese counterpart, also directly owns US bonds, but both do not disclose any exact figures.

I think that a hint , FnF still trade like privates company and anyone can own it ( Gov. own 80%).
Who Owns Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac?

We recently did a story that began with this sentence:

"The housing market has recovered in many parts of the country, but the government still owns the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

After the story aired, we got a bunch of messages from a listener, Andrew Tomlinson, demanding a correction. So we called him up.

Andrew argues that the government does not actually own Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Here's the case he makes. Ever since the bailout, the government has had what's called a warrant to buy 80 percent of the common stock in Fannie and Freddie at any time. That means, whenever it feels like it, the government can take ownership of 80 percent (actually, 79.9 percent) of both companies. But the government has not actually acted on that warrant. So, Andrew argues, while the government has the right to own the bulk of Fannie and Freddie, it currently does not. Fannie and Freddie are owned, he says, by the people (like him) who currently hold the stock.

For most public companies, Andrew is correct, shareholders are the owners. But Fannie and Freddie are in an unusual situation. When the government bailed them out (in addition to getting those warrants), the Treasury Department placed Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship, which gave the government control over the companies. The government currently is taking all of the profits generated by Fannie and Freddie. For many observers the word "own" seems right. Many media organizations use the term "own." The Congressional Budget Office has said the government is the "effective owner" of Fannie and Freddie.

There are a lot of legal questions around the current state of affairs (and the terms used to describe it). One thing we can say without any hesitation or argument (we hope!) is that Fannie and Freddie are controlled by the government.


http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/04/21/401259676/who-owns-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac

Jude said sorry ...I am on your way...keep uncotitutional taking private property act! Remeber file your Tax.

Buy!

yes
It means Fannie Mae is public private , anyone can own their shares and Gov. only hold 80%

It means Gov. only owns 80% of FnF....
On September 7, 2008, James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being placed into conservatorship of the FHFA. The action was "one of the most sweeping government interventions in private financial markets in decades".[43][44][45] Lockhart also dismissed the firms' chief executive officers and boards of directors, and caused the issuance to the Treasury new senior preferred stock and common stock warrants amounting to 79.9% of each GSE. The value of the common stock and preferred stock to pre-conservatorship holders was greatly diminished by the suspension of future dividends on previously outstanding stock, in the effort to maintain the value of company debt and of mortgage-backed securities. FHFA stated that there are no plans to liquidate the company.[43][44][45][46][47][48][49]

The authority of the U.S. Treasury to advance funds for the purpose of stabilizing Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac is limited only by the amount of debt that the entire federal government is permitted by law to commit to. The July 30, 2008 law enabling expanded regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increased the national debt ceiling US$800 billion, to a total of US$10.7 Trillion in anticipation of the potential need for the Treasury to have the flexibility to support the federal home loan banks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

2pm Fannie Mae will be sure a private company......

In anticipation of the hearing scheduled for Thursday, July 14th, at 1:00 p.m., the
Court has reviewed the parties’ briefing. It has come to the Court’s attention that a named
defendant, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, is the conservator of the Federal National
Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”). The undersigned owns sixteen shares of stock in
Fannie Mae, and is concerned about the existence or appearance of any conflicts of interest.
This was not picked up by the Court’s internal conflict check system because Fannie Mae is
not a listed party. The Court apologizes for the oversight and would like to speak with
counsel and address this matter as soon as possible.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a telephone conference is SCHEDULED for
Friday, July 8th, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., to discuss this matter. A court reporter is needed and
will be provided by the Court. The parties must DIAL IN to this conference call five
minutes before the scheduled time by following these steps:
(A) Call AT&T Teleconferencing at 1-877-873-8017;
(B) Enter access code 8284218 (followed by “#”); and
Case: 7:15-cv-00109-ART-EBA Doc #: 55 Filed: 07/07/16 Page: 1 of 2 - Page ID#: 1310
2
(C) When requested, enter the security code, 1234 (followed by “#”).
..........http://gselinks.com/

What did "Too Big to Fail" mean in regards to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?

https://www.quora.com/What-did-Too-Big-to-Fail-mean-in-regards-to-Freddie-Mac-and-Fannie-Mae


When an institution is too big to fail, the government has determined that its failure would be too damaging to other institutions with whom it conducts business, to a broad swath of consumers or to financial markets as a whole. Too-big-to-fail institutions are not solely about size. They are deeply interconnected, politically powerful companies that are viewed as integral to the system and worth protecting from collapse.

In the years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008, the United States had two companies that were considered too-big-to-fail —Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants that were quasi Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). The companies had stockholders and highly-paid executives but they also had government mandates to fulfill and rich perquisites associated with their government ties.

Among these perquisites were a trillion dollar line of credit with the United States Treasury, freedom from paying local taxes in Washington, DC, and for many years they did not have to file financial statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. But the richest benefit of all was the lower cost of capital that Fannie and Freddie enjoyed because investors who bought their debt believed the companies would not be allowed to fail if they got into trouble. Although this was an implied guarantee until Sept. 2008, this
investor perception turned out to be true.

In the aftermath of the crisis, we have many more too-big-to-fail institutions. All of the major banks that received taxpayer money during the fall of 2008 —Citigroup (company), Wells Fargo (company), JPMorgan Chase (company), Bank of America (company)—are widely perceived as too-politically powerful and interconnected-to-fail. So instead of eliminating the problem of institutions that will be bailed out if they take too many risks that go awry, we have simply enlarged the group of future bailout candidates. And these institutions are larger than they were before the crisis.....

Corker: 'Filing Error' to Blame For $2M Missing in Income

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bob-corker-irs-taxes-republican/2015/12/14/id/705713/#ixzz4DpwZvfsG
Urgent: Do You Back Trump or Hillary? Vote Here Now!

Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Plaintiffs Allege Companies Are Treated Like Government ATM Machines

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3985841-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-plaintiffs-allege-companies-treated-like-government-atm-machines

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, alleges that the Treasury and the regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac violated a 2008 law that put the two mortgage companies into conservatorship as they faced insolvency at the height of the U.S. financial crisis.

The Treasury Department amended the bailout terms last year, forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to hand over most of their profits to the government, replacing a requirement that the companies pay quarterly dividends of 10 percent on the government’s nearly 80 percent stake.

The suit names both Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Perry Capital, which began investing in both firms in 2010, claimed in the lawsuit that shareholder value was impaired when the government instituted a “dividend sweep.”

The new arrangement prevents the firms from building capital that might have allowed them to redeem the government shares and eventually operate independently to the benefit of private shareholders.

The bailout agreement provides no mechanism for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to repay the $187.5 billion they owe the government from their 2008 bailout.

The two companies have returned to profitability, and by the end of June, had paid about $132 billion in dividends to taxpayers. Their financial health has prompted investors to snap up the preferred stock of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a bet they will be made private companies in the future.

“This lawsuit seeks to uphold the rule of law,” Theodore Olson, a partner at the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and a former U.S. solicitor general, said in a statement.

He said the 2008 Housing and Economic Recovery Act, known as HERA, established specific rules about the government’s limits and obligations under conservatorship.

Profits at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also led Perry Capital and other hedge funds including Paulson & Co. to push Congress to consider a privatization of the two mortgage financiers to boost the value of preferred shares they have bought.

“Investors had every right to expect these rules to be followed,” Olson added.

Republicans and Democrats, along with President Barack Obama, want to abolish both mortgage companies, but have yet to agree on the right approach.

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators last month introduced a bill that would liquidate the companies and replace them with a government reinsurer of mortgage securities that would backstop private capital in a crisis.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not make loans but instead buy them from lenders and package them as bonds, and guarantee them against default. A key part of the housing system, the two mortgage financiers own or back about half of all U.S. home loans.

Perry Capital manages investment funds for the benefit of retirement plans, university endowments, foundations, insurance companies and other institutional and private investors. Perry Capital has made significant investments in many different housing related securities, according to a press release.

“What we’re seeking is to require Treasury and the FHFA to obey the rules set forth in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act” of 2008, a lawyer involved in the litigation, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters on a conference call. “There are no damages being sought.”

when? Do you know? Time to buy?

Eliminating this policy provides greater access to mortgage credit by enabling borrowers to refinance with more favorable rates and terms and streamline lender processes by removing requirements that required manual steps,” Fannie Mae stated in the update.
The policy was introduced the same month that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken in to conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) amid uncertainty of the performance of restructured loans. The policy was updated to allow a restructured mortgage to subsequently be refinanced after the government established programs such as the Hardest Hit Fund to provide principal forgiveness relief to underwater borrowers.
“In an effort to simply our eligibility guidelines and support the housing market, we are eliminating our policy on restructured mortgages,” Fannie Mae stated in the update.
Fannie Mae also announced its first change to its HomeReady product, incorporating features enabling lenders to expand credit access in a “safe and responsible manner.” Fannie Mae stated that a number of product enhancements are planned this year as a result of continued assessments of HomeReady.
The first change to HomeReady involves simplifying the way income limits are applied by establishing a single area median income limit of 100 percent (the previous limit was 80 percent or 100 percent, depending on where the property was located). The change will be implemented in Fannie Mae’s Desktop Underwriter the week of July 16, 2016; for manually underwritten loans, the policy is effective for loans with application dates on or after July 16, 2016.

http://www.dsnews.com/news/07-05-2016/fannie-mae-eliminates-restructured-loan-policy

Warren Buft bough FnF back?

It does not look good ....http://finance.yahoo.com/news/goldman-abacus-144604786.html

Too Big to jail and lie !

Federal Jurisdiction—Fannie Mae

Mayer Brown LLP
Mayer Brown LLP logo USA June 28 2016
Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp., No. 14-1055

The Federal National Mortgage Association—better known as “Fannie Mae”—is a quasi-governmental enterprise that operates under a federal charter but that has private owners. Fannie Mae’s charter authorizes the entity to sue and be sued “in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal.” 12 U.S.C. § 1723a(a). The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether that provision confers original jurisdiction on the federal courts for any case in which Fannie Mae is a party.

Such sue-and-be-sued clauses arise in a variety of federal statutes, involving individuals and entities such as the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston. The United States filed a certiorari-stage brief taking the position that Fannie Mae’s charter does not provide district courts with original jurisdiction of suits brought by or against Fannie Mae.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=95af44db-33a4-484a-901e-03c91fbad28a

"Corruptions" move slower !

Fannie, Freddie and the Secrets of a Bailout With No Exit

But now, with the unsealing of documents this week that were produced as part of a lawsuit filed against the government, new evidence is coming to light on how intimately the White House was involved in the Treasury’s decision in August 2012 to keep all the companies’ profits for the government. That move effectively maintained Fannie’s and Freddie’s status as wards of the state.

The newly released documents go beyond previous disclosures in the case and make clear that the Obama administration never had any intention of restoring Fannie and Freddie, which enjoyed implicit backing from the government before the takeover, to their status as stand-alone entities.

An email from Jim Parrott, then a top White House official on housing finance, was sent the day the so-called profit sweep was announced. It said the change was structured to ensure that the companies couldn’t “repay their debt and escape as it were.”

The documents also show the Treasury moving to modify the terms of the mortgage finance giants’ $187.5 billion bailout shortly after a July 2012 meeting when the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fannie’s and Freddie’s regulator, learned that they were about to enter “the golden years” of profitability.

Since then, Fannie and Freddie have returned to the Treasury over $50 billion more than they received in the bailout. But the amount they owe to the government remains outstanding.

The new materials cast further doubt on arguments made in court by government lawyers that the profit sweep came about because Fannie and Freddie were in a death spiral and taxpayers needed protection from future losses. Documents unsealed last month also served to undermine that legal stance.

Continue reading the main story
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

The trickle of documents comes years after Fannie and Freddie shareholders sued the government, contending that its decision regarding the companies’ profits was illegal. Defending against an array of these suits, lawyers for the Justice Department have requested confidential treatment for thousands of pages of materials. In a case brought in Federal Claims Court, the government’s lawyers asserted presidential privilege in 45 documents.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/how-freddie-and-fannie-are-held-captive.html?_r=0

Franklin American Mortgage Company announced it is now offering Fannie Mae HomeReady Fixed Rate Product.

Overture Technologies has integrated trended credit data into its automated underwriting system, a move that enables lenders and investors to gain new insight into the credit risk of their non-agency loans. The enhancement to the industry's leading independent automated loan underwriting system (AUS) follows Fannie Mae's recent announcement regarding use of expanded credit data in its Desktop Underwriter AUS. Trended credit data records a consumer's use and repayment of revolving credit over time and provides important insight into consumers' evolving ability and willingness to repay a new debt obligation. Lenders, particularly those specializing in loans to borrowers with previous bankruptcy or housing defaults, can leverage this data to understand how consumers have managed their use of credit as they re-establish their credit history.

United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM), has introduced a new proprietary Settlement Agent Portal, which enables settlement agents to submit their closing changes electronically to UWM. The new portal will streamline the closing process and speed up the response time for UWM clients and their settlement agents. The portal will enable settlement agents to review the preliminary closing documents and submit their changes electronically, placing the file directly into the closing queue. This process eliminates the need for multiple emails and waiting for a Closing Specialist to reply to an email. UWM produced a tutorial video to highlight the increased efficiencies the portal makes possible.

On the flip side, effective 6/30/16, Mountain West Financial, Inc. (MWF) will discontinue the 203K Standard and Limited Wholesale Programs. MWF will accept registrations up to 6/30/16 and all loans must fund by 8/31/16.

And recently the IRS notified vendors who provide tax transcripts (such as IVES vendors) that they would need to implement new requirements in order to continue providing tax transcript services.These new requirements are intended to better protect taxpayer information. The updated requirements include certain new assessments and certifications for vendors and lender clients. The MBA's president Dave Stevens sent out a note saying that, "While the IRS has not made their new certification requirements available to the public, we have learned they will include items such as a requirement that lenders provide their vendors with the Social Security numbers of any individual authorized to use the tax transcript process. Some of the new requirements must be implemented by July 1 and thus demand your immediate attention. Other requirements must be implemented within 45 days.

"The MBA has asked the IRS to delay the implementation date and is working for further clarity around the requirements. The IRS, however, as of this writing has refused to delay the implementation. I strongly recommend that you reach out to your vendor today to obtain the requirements and complete the necessary certifications and assess the impacts on your business operations. According to the IRS, vendors will be required to suspend access to the transcript service for any lender that fails to complete the required certification by midnight, Friday, July 1. If you have any questions, please contact Rick Hill, Vice President, Industry Technology at (202) 557-2718.

In better news, The Mortgage Collaborative, the industry's only privately held cooperative, has surpassed $100 billion in estimated originations in 2016 with the addition of its 59th preferred member, Movement Mortgage. "This is an extraordinary milestone for us" said David G. Kittle, CMB the Collaborative's Vice Chairman. "As we move into the second half of 2016 and towards our August Summer Conference in Denver, we'll be discussing how TMC will monetize this production in 2017. are member companies estimated to do that volume in 2016?

For some training and events coming up, some as soon as today...

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/channels/pipelinepress/06292016-mpf-for-ginnies.aspx

Madden also has the potential to be cited as precedent in, and used as the basis for, litigation in other circuits. Of course, defendants are free to question the Second Circuit’s reasoning in Madden, including the lack of consideration of the valid-when-made doctrine and the version of the preemption analysis on which the court relied. Concerned parties would be well advised to consider the treatment of the valid-when-made doctrine in their own circuit and whether there is sufficient precedent to deny a Madden-based challenge.

However, from the perspective of an originator or debt purchaser, this does raise the question of whether there is now a split between the Second Circuit, on the one hand, and the Eighth (and Fifth) Circuit, on the other, and, accordingly, whether such parties should evaluate loans made to borrowers located in such jurisdictions in a different manner. In the U.S. Solicitor General’s amicus brief opposing the writ of certiorari, the Solicitor General argues that there is no such split given the particular facts of each of the most notable cases. The Solicitor General notes that Madden is a case addressing whether federal preemption applies to interest rates charged by an assignee in a situation where the originating national bank entirely terminates its relationship with the borrower. By contrast, the Solicitor General notes that: Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 2005) only addressed whether mortgage-loan fees charged by a national bank (as opposed to an assignee) was interest not subject to preemption; Krispin v. The May Department Stores 218 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2000) addressed a situation where a national bank retained a credit card customer’s accounts, along with the processing and servicing responsibilities, and only assigned the related receivables to a non-bank; and FDIC v. Lattimore Land Corp., 656 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1981) involved a loan originated by a state regulated entity (as opposed to a national bank). For that and other reasons, the Solicitor General argued that there was no circuit split requiring resolution by the Supreme Court.

However, from a practical perspective, it cannot be denied that Madden creates a precedent (regarding the treatment of interest charged by non-bank assignees) in the Second Circuit that is simply lacking in the other circuits. The uncertainty created by such precedent will not be resolved until another district court in the Second Circuit (or perhaps the court of appeals itself) addresses the applicability of the valid-when-made doctrine to a loan held by a non-bank assignee.

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/504804/Financial+Services/Finance+Alert+The+Uncertain+Legacy+of+Madden

FHFA's Hostile GSE Takeover Of GSEs Laid Out In Discovery Documents

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3984586-fhfas-hostile-gse-takeover-gses-laid-discovery-documents