Brief Markup of Milken Blueprint For GSE Reform

JANUARY 2 0 1 9
A Blueprint for Administrative

Reform of the Housing Finance
System
Eric Kaplan, Michael Stegman, Phillip Swagel,
and Theodore Tozer
INTRODUCTION
This paper sets out proposed administrative actions to reform the 1 See Kaplan, Eric, Michael
Stegman, Phillip Swagel, and
housing finance system in the absence of legislation. The goal is Theodore Tozer, “Bringing
Housing Finance Reform over
to build upon the progress that has been made toward a safer and the Finish Line,” Milken Institute,
January 2018, https://www.
more effective housing finance system with Fannie Mae and Freddie
Who would this benefit? It is not necessary to liquidity and creates further milkeninstitute.org/publications/
Mac in conservatorship,
arbitrage opportunities while ensuring the continued operation of
for private firms.
view/898.
the system. Ultimately, Congress must act to create an explicit, paid- 2 However, in “Bringing Housing
for government guarantee of qualified mortgage-backed securities Finance Reform over the Finish
Line,” the authors lay out – and
(MBS) and to provide the housing finance regulator with the reiterate here – key reform
This can and principles for any housing finance
should occur authority to charter new firms to compete with Fannie and Freddie. reform end-game, including
(i) making private capital the
but, as with While the policy debate over legislation continues, administrative
primary source of mortgage credit
the FDIC, all and bearer of credit losses, (ii)
measures
potential entrants must can advance
meet theregulatory
the same government-sponsored
requirements asenterprises
incumbents. reducing taxpayer exposure to
(GSEs) toward an end-state vision that ultimately requires legislative the housing finance system, (iii)
ensuring access to sustainable
action to finalize. mortgage credit on competitive
terms, and (iv) enabling the entry
of competitors to the GSEs or any
successor on an equal footing.
The action steps outlined in this Milken Institute paper do not lead to
the end of the conservatorship absent legislation because we do not The "critical flaws" meme is
tired. The critical pre-crisis
see a viable path by which administrative measures can fix critical flaws were:
flaws in the GSE charters—and fixing these flaws should be viewed 1) Inadequate capital;
2) Portfolio risk as driver of
as a necessity.1 Even so, administrative measures can address highly leveraged ROEs;
many of the stumbling blocks to legislative action and thereby 3)Lack of clear bright-line
between primary and secondary
set the stage for further reform that includes changes to the GSE markets
charters. Importantly, the administrative measures we recommend 4) Lack of deeming/prior-
approval requirements of new
are consistent with a number of possible longer-term end-states for programs and new products;
the GSEs and the secondary housing finance market. This policy 5) Receivership language
HERA provides full authority to
brief takes no position on the precise end-state to be accomplished address capital (1). HERA and
with legislation.2 Instead, the focus is on administrative steps that FHFA authority address
portfolios (2). The proposals
advance the broad goals of housing finance reform and for which we made in this paper risk
believe there could be bipartisan support. recreating the blurred lines
between primary and secondary
markets (3). HERA provides FHFA
We oppose releasing the GSEs from conservatorship without fixing
authority for (4) which OFHEO
the critical flaws in the GSE charters. The GSEs have accomplished lacked. HERA creates clear
receivership language but it
a great deal post-crisis and their management and staff deserve
could be tightened.
2 MILKEN INSTITUTE A BLUEPRINT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM OF THE HOUSING FINANCE SYSTEM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
considerable credit for continuing to innovate and improve the

housing finance system while in conservatorship. Still, it must
The GSEs no longer compete on
be recognized that the GSEs’ post-crisis success has occurred: price/volume and behave like
(i) under a protected duopolistic status that impedes entry and duopsonies not duopolies. Milken
does not demonstrate that new
competition, (ii) with unparalleled access to capital with explicit entrants will reduce cost, improve
government backing, and (iii) in a strong economic environment efficiencies or provide
improvements of liquidity and
that reflects historically low delinquencies. Releasing the GSEs already thin margins suggest the
from conservatorship without a plan in place to resolve the charteropposite will result.
flaws—most notably, the privatizing of profits and socializing of
This paper ignores the fact that
losses—would be to disregard the lessons of the firms’ failures most of the GSEs losses resulted
during the financial crisis. from their investment portfolios
which held highly rated PLS, whole
loans and each other's securities
The paper first discusses steps to complete the existing business as a means to generate highly
leveraged returns driven by the
underway in the conservatorship, and then turns to other spread between the cost of capital
administrative measures that should be taken to make progress on (too low) and artificially high
yields. Limitations on GSE
housing finance reform beyond determining the future of the GSEs.portfolios to only serve short-
term liquidity purpose eliminates
this risk and also the need for
the GSEs to issue meaningful
amounts of debt instruments.
COMPLETE EXISTING BUSINESS
IN CONSERVATORSHIP
REVISE AND COMPLETE THE GSE CAPITAL RULE PROPOSED BY 3“Enterprise Capital
Requirements,” Federal
THE FHFA3 Register, July 17, 2018, https://
www.federalregister.gov/
Because of its importance and complexity, the Federal Housing
Finance Agency (FHFA) should follow the practices of other financial
regulators by completing the GSE capital rule through an iterative
process involving more than a single round of public input. At a This will occur. But it is
minimum, re-proposing the rule is necessary to provide the public important to remember that the
GSEs capital adequacy has
with more insight into the FHFA’s analytical constructs, assumptions, always been measured relative
and data that went into the initial formulation of capital and leverage to statutory capital. Thus, if
the Administration desires to
requirements. Getting this rule right is critical to creating a housing move the GSEs out of
finance system driven by private capital that can survive future Conservatorship, thereby
reducing taxpayer risks, they
downturns and maintain liquidity for credit-worthy borrowers can release them once they
throughout the economic cycle. The rule will also guide the pricing reach statutory capital levels
and have them operate under a
of guarantee fees and provide potential investors with critical consent decree until a) the
information on the economics of the future housing finance system GSEs reach regulatory capital
requirements and/or b) the
featuring a security-level government guarantee. legislation desired by the
administration is passed into
Two key issues with the rule are the amount and quality of capital law. This can be embedded in
any further amendments to the
required and the framework with which to address the pro-cyclicality PSPAs.
of the initial proposal.
Required Capital
The authors of this paper agree that that the capital rule should
require the GSEs and any future entrants into government-
guaranteed securitization to fund themselves with enough capital to
protect taxpayers and to align the incentives of investors to exercise
prudence by ensuring that their own funds are at risk. While we do This is a general assertion
not agree on the appropriate amount of capital, we do agree that a and is not unique to the GSEs.
Further, evidence shows the
capital requirement of 2.5 percent would have been enough for the "panoply of emergency
GSEs to make it through the 2008-09 financial crisis only with the measures" provided less
support for the GSEs than for
full panoply of emergency measures taken by the Treasury, Fed, and private mortgage insurers,
FDIC. bond insurers and large
financial firms like Citi,
BofA and Wells.
EXECUTIVE EXISTING
COMPLETE SUMMARYBUSINESS IN CONSERVATORSHIP
This is an important point. Reform must eliminate the capital arbitrage that allows banks with capital markets
access to transform portfolios of similar but higher risk weighted assets on their balance sheets into lower
risk weighted
The goal should be to ensure that there is sufficient capital to 4 If the Department of Justice
GSE securities. Further, reform must address flaws in the Basel implementation thatdetermines that a proposed
create dis- support the continued operation of the housing finance system substitution of a Periodic
Commitment Fee for the existing
without the need for future extraordinary measures. We also
incentives from
Net Worth Sweep dividend
holding mortgage assets.
provision would be a compromise
recommend avoiding capital arbitrage by considering comparable
of claims under 31 U.S.C. §
capital treatment of other regulated entities in shaping the capital 3711(a)(2) and 31 CFR 902.2, then
the proposal cannot proceed
rule. without the written approval
of the Attorney General or his
delegate.
Pro-Cyclicality
The FHFA should maintain mark-to-market benchmarking of loan- This could take the form of a
level capital requirements as proposed, but also include in the final SIFI-surcharge on SIFI
originators who could
rule a rules-based countercyclical component that increases capital portfolio loans but choose to
requirements during a housing market boom and reduces the use the GSEs in good times.
It would essentially pre-fund
requirements during a downturn. Partly because of its opacity, there
their access to the GSEs in
is little agreement on the extent to which the proposal is pro-cyclical. adverse economic
environments.
For example, in its comment letter on the rule, Fannie Mae estimates
that the amount of capital required for single-family performing
loans would increase by 80 percent during stress cycles, leading
Fannie to maintain higher capital during good times to avoid the
need for a rapid capital increase.
ALLOW THE GSES TO REBUILD RETAINED CAPITAL

The Treasury Department (Treasury) and the FHFA should amend the
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPAs) to suspend dividend
payments to Treasury on a non-accrual basis during the suspension
period. Additionally, such amendments should allow each GSE to
retain capital on their balance sheets above the current applicable
limit of $3 billion, provided that doing so (i) is not a prelude
The paper does not detail
to releasing the GSEs from conservatorship absent legislation meaningful charter flaws that
to resolve serious charter flaws, and (ii) would not represent a were left unaddressed in HERA.
Further: 1) What taxpayer claims
compromise of taxpayer claims.4 Dividend payments would be are unsatisfied? 2) How do any
replaced by reinstatement of a periodic commitment fee that would benefits of those claims accrue
without exercising warrants and
continue to compensate Treasury for the hundreds of billions of selling shares? 3) This can not
taxpayer dollars that backstop the GSEs’ debt and MBS guarantees. occur while the GSEs are in
Conservatorship.
The suspension would remain in effect until the FHFA determines
EXECUTIVE EXISTING
that the GSEs are compliant with the final capital rule or until
Congress enacts housing finance reform legislation, whichever
comes first.
The rationale for this recommendation is four-fold:
1. Regardless of the specific forms a reformed secondary

market system might take, all require credit enhancers to raise
substantial amounts of private capital to be placed at risk in
front of any government guarantee.
2. Eliminating the GSE dividends as a source of funding for

other government programs would remove a reason to extend
the status quo indefinitely.
3. Stronger GSE balance sheets would protect two affordable

housing programs that they fund through an assessment on
their new business each year. Under current law, the FHFA can
suspend these assessments if collecting them would jeopardize
either GSE’s financial stability.
4. Building up the GSEs’ equity cushions would reduce the

likelihood of future draws against Treasury’s capital backstop
and the attendant political risks of one-off congressional
intervention that such events can entail.
COMPLETE THE WORK ON THE UNIFORM MORTGAGE-BACKED

SECURITY
The FHFA should finish the work on the uniform mortgage-backed
security (UMBS) that will unify the previously separate MBS of
Fannie and Freddie. Experience with the UMBS will then guide
whether the GSEs’ or Ginnie Mae’s securitization platform should
serve as the plumbing of the future system.
EXECUTIVE EXISTING
A common MBS for all guarantors is critical to allow for future entry,
competition, and maximum liquidity. Without a uniform security, Given that the Conservator
is required, by law, to
MBS issued by new guarantors would be less liquid than the preserve the assets and
incumbent firms’ securities and trade at a discount to Fannie Mae value of the enterprises,
how do you affect this
MBS (as has been the case for Freddie Mac). subsidy of new entrants
without a cost to the
GSEs?
This disparity would make it difficult for new guarantors to compete
for business. A key indicator of the long-term success of the uniform
security will be for investors to perceive that mortgages in MBS from
various issuers prepay at similar speeds through economic cycles;
otherwise, there could be pricing differences across guarantors (as
has been the case between Fannie and Freddie MBS), which would
reduce the value of the UMBS.
Ginnie Mae provides an alternative on which to base a common

security if investors in the UMBS see enough differences between
MBS issued by Fannie and Freddie that the liquidity advantages of
the uniform security are not realized. Ginnie Mae technology today
allows multiple issuers to deliver into an MBS that has the same
pool number and CUSIP number. SIFMA already requires that all
Ginnie Mae “to-be-announced” (TBA) trades use the multiple issuer
pool. If an issuer wants to issue a generic Ginnie Mae security that
is not a multiple issuer pool for that month, the MBS is not eligible
for TBA delivery. The Ginnie Mae program allows investors to buy a
share of the whole market, a feature that minimizes how much one
issuer can affect the prepayment speeds of an MBS pool.
NEW STEPS TO IMPROVE THE
SYSTEM
IMPLEMENT TRANSPARENCY ON GSE PRICING 5Parrott, Jim, Michael Stegman,
Phillip Swagel, and Mark Zandi,
The FHFA should provide full information on the cross-subsidies “Access and Affordability in the
New Housing Finance System,”
built into GSE all-in guarantee pricing to allow for a reasoned policy Urban Institute, February 2018,
https://www.urban.org/sites/
discussion over the future role of the GSEs, including their footprints
default/files/publication/96461/
and product mix and the mechanisms by which the future system access_and_affordability_in_the_
new_housing_finance_system_2.
will serve low-income borrowers. The FHFA has disclosed neither pdf.
the underlying data and assumptions nor the analytic constructs

used to determine loan-level capital economic allocations, levels
of under- and over-charging of loans in various risk buckets. One
estimate of the extent of cross-subsidy in the current system is
around $4 billion a year.5 Another form of cross-subsidy arises out
of differential mark-ups or “Loan Level Pricing Adjustments” across
loan products. For example, investor loans are priced to generate
surpluses significantly beyond their forecasted losses and contribute
revenues beyond their share of overall business to help reduce costs
for higher-risk home loans. GSE financial performance thus depends
not only on overall business volume, but also on product mix and
the composition of loan purchases across risk buckets. A granular
understanding of current GSE pricing is needed to inform future
reforms.
PROVIDE MORE RISK-BASED PRICING OF GUARANTEE FEES, WITH

EXPLICIT SUBSIDIES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Risk-based pricing, along with explicit subsidies for affordable
housing, will allow for greater and more effective assistance to
families who need help to become homeowners. Under the current
system, low-risk borrowers pay higher guarantee fees to provide
a cross-subsidy for higher-risk borrowers. Ultimately this leads to
adverse selection for the GSEs, as low-risk borrowers find better
deals in loans that end up in private-label securitizations (PLS) or on
balance sheets.
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM
The current situation in which high-quality mortgages get better 6 Parrott, Jim, Michael Stegman,
Phillip Swagel, and Mark Zandi,

execution through PLS indicates that the cross-subsidy could push “Access and Affordability in the
New Housing Finance System,”
up guarantee fees for low-risk loans beyond a tipping point. Urban Institute, February 2018,
https://www.urban.org/sites/
default/files/publication/96461/
While cross-subsidies within GSE pricing are by far the largest access_and_affordability_in_the_
new_housing_finance_system_2.
source of affordable housing funding, they are poorly targeted pdf.
because subsidies are allocated on the basis of risk rather than 7Stegman, Michael and Phillip
Swagel, “An Affordable Housing
need—currently, 23 percent of GSE mortgages that are subsidized Fee in the Context of GSE
Reform,” Milken Institute, June
within the two firms’ pricing structures do not go to low-income 2018, https://www.milkeninstitute.
org/publications/view/916.
families.6 This means that low-risk, low-income families with higher
credit scores pay more for their loans in order to subsidize higher-
income borrowers with lower scores.
EVALUATE AND IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AFFORDABLE

HOUSING MEASURES
The FHFA should evaluate and refine the GSEs’ affordable housing
activities. Using initial data collected by Treasury and the non-profit
National Low Income Housing Coalition, a recent Milken Institute
assessment found that early allocations from the GSEs’ affordable
housing assessment to the Housing Trust Fund and Capital Magnet
Fund provided resources to intended activities.7 As more dollars are
deployed, the FHFA would do well to deepen the understanding of
the effectiveness of these programs.
While the affordable mortgage purchase requirements have the

longest history, the evidence is uncertain that they expand lending
to creditworthy low-income borrowers over and above the benefits
of their securitization activities for the mortgage market as a whole.
The FHFA should use its wealth of available data and its deep
analytical expertise to assess the effectiveness of the affordable
housing goals regime.
The GSEs are only one year into execution of their initial three-year
duty to serve underserved markets plans, which is too early to
determine how well they are working.
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
However, there are aspects of the current rule, such as the inclusion 8 In this paper, “agency” pertains
to either or both GSEs, and “non-
of financing for renewable energy improvements, that reduce their agency” pertains to non-GSE
and non-government mortgage
effectiveness in delivering more affordable housing to underserved programs.
markets.
More data-driven analysis of each of these affordable housing

regimes would be useful to inform the next legislative debate. At
the same time, the FHFA should ensure that any refinements made
in conservatorship do not reduce the scope or amount of support
for affordable housing. Changes should include improved targeting
so that subsidies go to prudent low-income families rather than to
imprudent higher-income families. This would not mean a reduction
of effort or resources for affordable housing—instead, the eventual
outcome of housing finance reform should be to increase these
resources.
IMPROVE THE TARGETING OF GSE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ACTIVITIES

The FHFA should recalibrate current volume caps and exemptions
to reduce the GSEs’ dominance in the multifamily financing
market and to better support the production and preservation of
low- and moderate-income developments. The GSEs use their
taxpayer-advantaged costs of capital to underprice private sources
of multifamily financing for market-rate properties. While the
FHFA’s rationale for allowing exemptions from the volume cap is
to encourage more GSE lending for affordable housing, allowed
exemptions have grown to the point of diminishing effectiveness
and could be crowding out private sector activity.
EXPAND THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE COMMON SECURITIZATION

PLATFORM (CSP) AND OPEN ACCESS TO KEY GSE TECHNOLOGIES
The functionality of the CSP should be expanded to facilitate This sounds like a Wells Fargo
pitch
future entry by new participants that can connect to the CSP on an
equal footing with Fannie and Freddie in government-guaranteed
securitizations. Additionally, it should support non-agency, non-
government-guaranteed securitization.8 Why is this necessary or advantageous? PLS were a disaster
that wee used by banks to avoid holding sub-quality loans
in portfolio.
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
Given that the private firm Common Securitization Solutions 9 Note that this action and
certain others that could be
(CSS)—which created and administers the CSP—is a joint venture considered—e.g., expanding
voting rights to new non-GSE
of the GSEs, CSS should eventually be spun off as an independent CSS board members—might
need to be dealt with outside of
entity to serve as a market utility.9 The FHFA should utilize the period
conservatorship. We recommend
of conservatorship to evaluate the details of expanding the CSP’s a legal analysis in conjunction
with the evolution of CSS to
functionality, and publish a transparent analysis of their findings. accommodate future housing
finance system end-games.
The operational, technological, and economic hurdles of building

a bespoke attachment to the CSP are substantial and act as a
barrier to entry and competition. The FHFA should analyze and
seek to alleviate these challenges. As an alternative, it is possible
that technology under the auspices of Ginnie Mae could provide
an efficient path for new participants to connect to the CSP. For
example, the current CSP structure relies on Fannie and Freddie’s
computing facilities for a large part of the agency MBS bond
administration calculations. Ginnie Mae’s platform can perform
these functions in the same manner as Fannie and Freddie.
Conceptually, Ginnie Mae could attach to the CSP and new entrants
could report the data underlying these calculations directly into
Ginnie Mae. Leveraging the existing Ginnie Mae platform in this
manner would eliminate the need for bespoke attachments by
new entrants. We recommend that the FHFA, Ginnie Mae, and CSS
collaborate to evaluate this potential pathway so that their findings
can inform the development of end-state housing finance reform.
Other barriers to entry involve GSE data, tools, and technologies

that make competition by new entrants on an equal footing with the
GSEs impractical. Among other things, the GSEs enjoy exclusive
access to and control over:
• Data – The breadth and depth of the GSE data trove,

developed over decades in a protected environment, is
unmatched across the housing finance landscape.
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
• The Uniform Data Collateral Portal (UCDP) – The UCDP, 10Under the Patch, subject to
certain restrictions on loan
through which lenders submit appraisal reports for features and points, any loan
that is eligible for sale to either
conventional mortgages delivered to Fannie and Freddie, GSE is automatically defined
as a qualified mortgage loan.
provides the GSEs with a wealth of appraisal data and
Therefore, a conforming balance
information that is similarly unmatched. loan that is approved under either
GSE AUS is a QM loan, even
though the GSEs, rather than
the CFPB, control the applicable
• Collateral evaluation tools – The GSEs have been able to underwriting standards and
related algorithms. 12 CFR §
use their expansive data on home values to build models to 1026.43(e)(4).
evaluate the accuracy of appraisals. Appraisals are perhaps the

most subjective component of the loan underwriting process
and pose significant risk to lenders and guarantors. These
collateral evaluation tools have streamlined the origination
process for lenders who sell their loans to the GSE while
reducing risk.
• Automated Underwriting Systems (AUS) – The GSEs’ AUS

constitute an industry standard as they are used to underwrite
almost half of all loans. But only Fannie and Freddie know the
programming and algorithms embedded in their respective
systems. Nevertheless, because the GSEs’ AUS are such known
and ubiquitous tools, no other automated underwriting system
(at least in the short- and mid-term) will be as broadly accepted
in the secondary market. In fact, the GSEs’ AUS effectively
have the stamp of law to determine qualified mortgage (QM)
eligibility under the temporary GSE QM “patch” (the Patch).10
No other system enjoys this status.
The FHFA should analyze: (i) increasing transparency into GSE data,
the UCDP, GSE collateral evaluation tools, the GSEs’ AUS, and other
GSE technologies, and (ii) allowing new participants equal access
to these items. The goal is to evaluate whether such transparency
and access will help to lower barriers to competition and contribute
to the safety and soundness of various end-state housing finance
models.
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
The FHFA should also investigate the possibility of expanding the

11“A Strategic Plan for Enterprise
CSP to non-agency PLS without a government backstop. This would Conservatorships: The Next Chapter
in a Story that Needs an Ending,”
fulfill the initial vision for the CSP, although we see PLS using a
Federal Housing Finance Agency:
separate channel or platform within the CSP.11 13-14, February 21, 2012, https://
www.fhfa.gov/AboutUs/Reports/
ReportDocuments/20120221_
CREATE A TRANSPARENT PROCESS TO EVALUATE, APPROVE, AND StrategicPlanConservatorships_508.
pdf; “Building a New Infrastructure
MONITOR GSE PILOT PROGRAMS for the Secondary Mortgage
Market,” Federal Housing
Innovation has improved the safety and effectiveness of the housing Finance Agency, October 4,
2012, https://www.fhfa.gov/
finance system in conservatorship; additional pilot projects could PolicyProgramsResearch/
Research/PaperDocuments/
facilitate further innovation. At the same time, pilots should be
FHFA_Securitization_
undertaken with a clearly-defined rationale and goals to avoid White_Paper_N508L.pdf.
StrategicPlanConservatorships_508.
“mission creep,” by which the GSEs increase taxpayer risk or crowd pdf; “Building a New Infrastructure
for the Secondary Mortgage
out private sector activity. In considering GSE pilot programs, the Market,” Federal Housing
Finance Agency, October 4,
FHFA should adhere to the following three principles: (i) innovations 2012, https://www.fhfa.gov/
PolicyProgramsResearch/
should not increase the GSE risk profile across economic cycles,
Research/PaperDocuments/FHFA_
(ii) pilots should avoid supplanting private sector efforts with Securitization_White_Paper_N508L.
pdf.
government-backed activity, and (iii) the FHFA should recognize that
changes in GSE structure, product mix, and cost structure affect
other government housing finance programs such as the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA).
TAILOR THE GSE FOOTPRINT

The FHFA should gradually restrict or eliminate specific product
types currently offered by the GSEs that are adequately served by
the private sector in good times and bad. As an example, there is no
need for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be involved with cash-out
refinances and second home financing. Americans own their home
equity and are free to borrow against it, and qualified borrowers
are free to buy second homes. The private sector can provide loan
products for these purposes, subject to applicable guardrails and
consumer protections. There is no need for a government guarantee
with the concomitant taxpayer risk for an activity that does not
further the societal goal of affordable homeownership.
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
One variant that could be considered, however, is to allow GSE

involvement with cash-out refinances that are qualified for
401(k)-type purposes. Ensuring and tracking this would pose
operational challenges, but we believe it is possible—after all,
retirement saving plans operate this same way. We recommend
that the new FHFA director evaluate GSE vs. non-agency cash-out
refinance offerings to determine appropriate GSE cash-out refinance
qualifications and purposes. Short of this, however, we recommend
leaving this type of financing to the private sector.
Additionally, the Federal Housing Administration, the Department

of Veterans Affairs (VA), and other government mortgage programs
allow for cash-out refinancing. We recommend that these entities
place similar restrictions on cash-out refinances.
Any loan that no longer fits within GSE or government mortgage

program eligibility guidelines will find a home either on a balance
sheet or in a PLS but only to the extent the pricing and liquidity in
these alternatives support the origination of the loan. Therefore,
moves to restrict agency-eligible product types should be made
gradually to give the non-agency primary and secondary markets
time to adjust for greater market share.
We do not recommend reducing the conforming loan limit—at

least not at this time. The proposed changes to guarantee fees with
risk-based pricing and to the product mix with the move of cash-out
refinances and second homes out of the GSEs present enough
change to be absorbed over the next few years. However, we do
recommend that FHFA conduct an evaluation of conforming loan
limits in light of median home prices, median income, and borrower
cost-burden, and provide an explicit justification for any future
increase in limits.
We also recommend, to the extent permitted by law, that the FHFA

consider reducing conforming loan limits when housing prices fall
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
rather than freezing them until prices rebound, which is the current 12Note that the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008
practice. A system that only allows loan limits to rise over time
12
sets forth rules regarding changes
to conforming loan limits.
inevitably expands the GSEs’ market power at the expense of the
13“Appendix Q to Part 1026
private sector. Making reductions optional rather than mandatory – Standards for Determining
Monthly Debt and Income,” CFPB,
would allow the FHFA to weigh the need for increased government
Accessed on December 27, 2018,
support of the housing market in times of crisis. https://www.consumerfinance.
gov/policy-compliance/
rulemaking/regulations/1026/Q/.
IMPROVE THE FUNCTIONALITY OF BUT MAINTAIN THE CONSUMER
14Warner and Round’s Senate
PROTECTIONS EMBEDDED IN THE ATR/QM RULE Bill 3401 in the 115th Congress
had a similar intent, allowing the
The consumer protections embedded in the ability-to-repay and
use of such methods for income
qualified mortgage rule (ATR/QM rule) should be preserved as a verification of self-employed
borrowers.
centerpiece of post-financial crisis mortgage reforms, as this instills
a critical layer of safety and soundness across the primary and
secondary markets. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) will soon distribute the results of its statutorily mandated
five-year lookback on these rules. Whether apart from or in
connection with this exercise, the CFPB should take the following
incremental steps to strengthen these rules in the context of the
housing finance landscape.
1. Incremental expansion/modification of Appendix Q13 – The

CFPB should incorporate by reference into Appendix Q
methods or tools to verify income, assets, or employment
used or permitted in agency or government mortgage
program originations, assuming such loans continue to
qualify automatically for QM status.14 However, before doing
so, the CFPB should make certain that the selection of any
such method or tool does not enable, constitute, or result in
“cherry-picking,” or selecting a favorable method or tool that
only works properly in combination with other unselected
methods or tools. Such cherry-picking could result in deficient
underwriting that increases the danger to systemic safety and
soundness. Any applicable regulatory or legislative action
should be drafted in a manner that prevents this unsound
practice.
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
The CFPB should also evaluate and implement a number of 15 To date, the CFPB has issued
one no-action letter. This no-action
technical fixes that industry stakeholders have proposed since letter states, in relevant part,
that it is not a “grant of any
the ATR/QM rule development. Many suggestions would not exception, waiver, safe harbor,
or similar treatment respecting
adversely impact borrowers and, in fact, may actually help
the statutes and rules identified
borrowers who were shut out from access to affordable, in the Request,…[nor] viewed as
an interpretation, waiver, safe
sustainable credit by the rule’s initial formulation. These include harbor, or the like, nor should
it be viewed as binding on the
proposed adjustments to documentation for self-employed Bureau.” Furthermore, the CFPB
states that, “This No-Action Letter
borrowers, seasonal employment, non-traditional sources of is not issued by or on behalf of any
other government agency or any
income and assets, and numerous other topics.
other person, and is not intended
to be honored or deferred to in
any way by any court or any other
2. Technological innovation – The CFPB can encourage government agency or person.”
technological innovation by evaluating proprietary 16“Policy on No-Action

underwriting tools and methodologies created by financial Letters and the BCFP Product
Sandbox,” Federal Register,
technology platforms, and employing on a case-by-case December 13, 2018, https://
www.federalregister.gov/
basis no-action letters that would allow new systems to be documents/2018/12/13/2018-26873/
policy-on-no-action-letters-and-
tested in a sandbox.15 The tension here is that to the extent a the-bcfp-product-sandbox; “Policy
on No-Action Letters: Information
CFPB no-action letter does not definitively shield the tool or
Collection,” CFPB, 2016, Accessed
methodology from regulatory liability, primary and secondary on December 27, 2018, https://files.
consumerfinance.gov/f/201602_
market users are less likely to adopt or give full credit to the cfpb_no-action-letter-policy.pdf.
The proposed rule would revise
tool or methodology. However, definitively shielding the tool the final policy to state that the
CFPB intends that a no-action letter
or methodology from regulatory action puts borrowers at risk “will include a statement that,
subject to good faith, substantial
should the tool or methodology prove to violate consumers’
compliance with the terms and
rights. The CFPB must solve for this conundrum before entering conditions of the letter, and in
the exercise of its discretion, the
into any no-action letters. Bureau will not make supervisory
findings or bring a supervisory or
enforcement action against the
On December 13, 2018, the CFPB published a proposed rule in recipient’s offering or providing the
described aspects of the product
the Federal Register that would revise its 2016 final policy on or service under (a) its authority
to prevent unfair, deceptive, or
issuing no-action letters and create a new “Product Sandbox.”16 abusive acts or practices; or (b)
any other identified statutory or
This undertaking will allow the CFPB to evaluate comments and
regulatory authority within the
address this conundrum. We recommend that the CFPB keep Bureau’s jurisdiction.”
the following points in mind as it crafts a final rule:
• Protections from regulatory action should not preclude all

private rights of action through the courts or actions by other
governmental entities with standing.
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
• Ongoing, diligent CFPB oversight of sandbox results should 17The Patch expires on the
date the GSEs exit federal
help to identify consumer protection law violations promptly, conservatorship or receivership or
on January 10, 2021, whichever
which would help mitigate damage to borrowers and to the occurs first.
lenders charged with remedying such violations.
• Distinctions in enforcement and penalties between (i) willful

misconduct or gross negligence and (ii) good-faith errors
could help reduce the chill on participation in the sandbox
program without sacrificing consumer protection.
3. Temporary GSE Patch extension – The CFPB should extend

the Patch for the duration of the conservatorship, which will
likely extend beyond 2021.17 However, this should only be done
if the FHFA commits to evaluating, prior to rollout, any change
in the eligibility requirements, credit policies, or underwriting
standards of either GSE. This is particularly important with
respect to changes that would not comport with Appendix Q.
Under the Patch, there are no guidelines limiting the extent to
which the GSEs can expand their respective credit boxes, and
any such expansion still qualifies for QM status. As the GSEs’
regulator, the FHFA should ensure that the GSEs adhere to
prudent eligibility standards, credit policies, and underwriting
standards.
4. Expand the 43 percent debt-to-income ratio (DTI) limit

under the ATR/QM rule to 45 percent DTI and establish a
residual income test – Expanding the DTI limit in Appendix Q
from 43 percent to 45 percent will help to move some market
share in higher DTI loans from the GSEs and FHA back to the
non-agency market. The following table illustrates the number
of purchase loans covered by the Patch having DTIs above 43
percent—what we define as higher DTI loans—and the subset of
these loans having DTIs up to and including 45 percent.
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
Table 1: Higher DTI Purchase Loans Covered by the Patch 18The Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD)
defines “cost-burdened” as
Year # Purchase Loans: % Purchase Loans: # Purchase Loans: paying more than 30 percent
> 43% DTI 43% < DTI ≤ 45% 43% < DTI ≤ 45%
of income for housing:
2016 see https://www.hud.gov/
380,000 70% 266,000 program_offices/comm_planning/
affordablehousing/. See also
2017
500,000 58% 400,000 https://www.census.gov/housing/
census/publications/who-can-
2018 (through afford.pdf and https://nlihc.org/
May) 528,000 42% 221,760 issues/hacb.
Source: Urban Institute Housing Finance Policy Center (numbers and percentages are approximate). 19 See https://www.housingwire.
com/articles/30672-adding-
this-one-test-could-cut-fha-
default-rates-in-half, https://
GSE data has shown positive performance of these loans in www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/
realestate/improving-default-
the post-crisis years. However, we must also consider stress
rates-on-fha-loans.html, and
scenarios. In this regard, we believe residual income, net of https://www.scotsmanguide.com/
News/2014/11/Residual-income-
taxes, is an important factor to consider for higher DTI loans. test-gains-support--but-HUD-
sticking-with-DTI/.
Residual income tests help lenders evaluate the amount of 2012 CFR §1026.43(e)(1)(ii)(B). See
also https://files.consumerfinance.
income a borrower would have left after paying monthly gov/f/201301_cfpb_ability-to-
repay-summary.pdf.
housing and other costs that factor into the DTI calculation.
21 See https://www.benefits.
The higher the DTI the greater the risk that the borrower will va.gov/WARMS/docs/admin26/
pamphlet/pam26_7/ch04.doc.
be cost-burdened and less able to handle an adverse life event
Note that the VA minimum
or economic downturn.18 Ensuring adequate residual income residual incomes “[…]are a guide.
They should not automatically
affords a measure of protection against the extension of trigger approval or rejection
of a loan. Instead…residual
unsustainable credit, which benefits both borrowers and the income [should be considered]
in conjunction with all other
housing finance system.19 credit factors.” (Id.) The FHA
used a residual income test in
the past, but now only considers
The CFPB recognized the importance of residual income by residual income as an elective
compensating factor at DTIs that
providing in the ATR/QM rule that for higher priced QM loans, exceed DTI limits. See https://
www.hud.gov/sites/documents/
a borrower could challenge a QM presumption by claiming the FY16_SFHB_MOD4_UNDER.PDF.
As a general matter, all residual
lender left the borrower with insufficient residual income with income tests remain subject to
lender-permitted exceptions
which to meet his or her living expenses.20 In practice, non-
as the tests are not currently
agency higher priced QM and expanded credit non-QM lenders prescribed by law.
include residual income tests in their guidelines. Among agency

and government mortgage programs, only the VA employs a
residual income test, although some lenders choose to place
residual income overlays on originations in these channels.21
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
We recommend that the CFPB, through a rule-making with 22We also recommend
cooperation from agency,
input from housing finance stakeholders, develop residual government, and private sector
entities in providing anonymized
income standards to establish guardrails that shield vulnerable data for the CFPB’s analysis.
borrowers from taking out unsustainable loans, without unduly 23Because the agencies
restricting credit or opening the door to biases. The standards
22 overseeing government mortgage
programs are granted their
should be data-based, feasible, and flexible enough to consider QM authority statutorily, it is
more likely that these programs
complex factors like cost of living, household size, disparities would require agency action
or legislation to implement
in personal needs and spending, and legitimate compensating CFPB-developed standards.
factors. The CFPB should also evaluate ways that technology

24 12 CFR §1026.43(c).
can safely enhance residual income calculations.
Furthermore, because the potential consequences of excessive

cost-burden are borrower- and not channel-based, the CFPB
residual income standards should apply to all higher DTI
loans across non-agency, agency, and government mortgage
programs alike. The CFPB has authority to embed residual
income requirements in Appendix Q and likely has authority to
incorporate them into the GSE patch.23
5. Clarification of ATR liability for non-QM loans – The CFPB

must address the enforcement uncertainty caused by the
current construction of the ATR/QM rule with respect to non-QM
loans. There are few if any guidelines around what constitutes
ATR for legal purposes apart from meeting eight prescribed
underwriting factors.24 Under the current rule, two identical
borrowers who lodge an ATR claim in foreclosure defense can
face two opposite rulings based on the same set of facts and
circumstances. Non-agency secondary market participants
charge for this uncertainty through methods like price discounts
and greater credit enhancement (despite the lack of ATR claims
to date, which is likely a by-product of a strong economy,
low unemployment, low delinquencies, and expanded loss
mitigation efforts).
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
The cost of this uncertainty is ultimately borne by non-QM 25Given the size of the CRT
transactions, we anticipate the
borrowers. This reduces the number of non-QM loans simply need for due diligence sampling.
Sampling is acceptable, as long as
by cost and affordability alone. Creating greater clarity around the sample is selected properly,
appropriate disclosure is provided
ATR enforcement would help to reduce this uncertainty and
to investors, and the GSEs
responsibly remove hurdles to non-QM lending. utilize their robust enforcement
framework to identify, pursue,
and enforce breaches within the
underlying reference pools.
REFORM CREDIT RISK TRANSFER (CRT) TRANSACTIONS
The FHFA should direct the GSEs to strengthen CRT transaction-
related due diligence review and exceptions to underwriting
guidelines so that CRT and PLS transactions are generally
equivalent in terms of scope, substance, and disclosure.25 CRT
transactions are effectively no different than PLS in terms of
investor exposure to credit losses on the underlying assets. That
means understanding the underlying assets is critical to making an
informed investment decision. However, there are certain review
and disclosure requirements and practices in post-crisis PLS that
do not apply to CRT transactions or, if applicable, are far less robust
in CRT transactions relative to PLS. Therefore, even though CRT
investors are exposed to losses on loans, they are given much less
information about diligence and underwriting exceptions on the
underlying assets. The FHFA should direct the GSEs to eliminate
these differences, keeping in mind that the reasons underlying
certain securities law exemptions for traditional agency MBS
issuance are not appropriate for CRT transactions.
With the GSEs in conservatorship and well along a path to

becoming distributors of mortgage credit risk, there is broad
bipartisan agreement that CRT transactions should continue to be
a cornerstone of a safe, sustainable housing finance system. The
FHFA, in coordination with the GSEs, should continue to evolve CRT
mechanisms and market. A natural next step would be to have more Other than the PMIs who
front-end risk sharing, including expansion into deeper loan-level genuinely supports deep-MI?
mortgage insurance.
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
PROVIDE GINNIE MAE AND FHA WITH RESOURCES TO IMPROVE 12 U.S. Code § 4513a - Federal
26
Housing Finance Oversight Board.

TECHNOLOGY AND OPERATIONS
Ginnie Mae and FHA should each have the necessary funding and 27 Id.
operational flexibility to run their programs effectively. FHA needs

additional funding to assure it has a stable IT platform that can be
used to manage lenders and the credit risk in its portfolio effectively.
While Ginnie Mae funding is adequate to maintain and operate
a state-of-the-art bond administration platform, it lacks adequate
resources to hire needed staff to protect the government guarantee
and to replace higher cost contractors when appropriate with
government employees. Indeed, there is a striking contrast between
the resource constraints at Ginnie Mae and FHA and the GSEs’
abilities to hire professional staff at competitive pay levels and to
invest in state-of-the-art infrastructure. Providing more resources
and flexibility for Ginnie Mae and FHA would improve the ability of
the overall housing finance system to serve the American people.
STRENGTHEN COORDINATION AMONG COMPONENTS OF THE

HOUSING FINANCE ECOSYSTEM
The FHFA can strengthen coordination across government-
supported lending channels by making better use of a little-known
and under-utilized consultative entity that Congress created when
it created the agency in 2008.26 The statutory mandate of the
Federal Housing Finance Oversight Board (FHFOB)—consisting
of the Secretaries of the Treasury and HUD, the Chairman of the
Securities Exchange Commission, and the FHFA director serving as
chair—is to advise the director on matters pertaining to the safety
and soundness and performance of the GSEs (and Federal Home
Loan Banks), provide feedback on the performance of the FHFA, and
on “such other matters relating to the Agency and its fulfillment of
its mission, as the Board determines appropriate.”27 It is this latter
charge that should be used to speak to the implications of the FHFA’s
actions as conservator and regulator on other components of the
housing finance ecosystem. While a more active and resourceful
FHFOB can raise coordinating challenges, as an advisor to the
EXECUTIVE
NEW STEPSSUMMARY
FHFA director it cannot ensure they are dealt with before the fact or
unwind unintended effects of the FHFA’s decisions.
Broader and better coordinating efforts are necessary because the

GSEs are part of a housing finance ecosystem. This means that
changes in one part of the system affect other parts, which can lead
to capital arbitrage, venue shopping, and destabilizing influences
on the FHA book of business that stricter risk-based pricing would
cause by virtue of lowering borrowing costs for higher credit-quality
borrowers.
CONCLUSION
Broadly speaking, there are two plausible courses of action the

administration can take with regard to the future role of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. The first is to use the administrative powers of
the FHFA and Treasury to prepare the GSEs to exit conservatorship
by transitioning them back to shareholder ownership and control.
This approach is required under
The policy rationale for this approach is that the decade-long
plain reading of HERA. The
conservatorship has stabilized the firms from their near-insolvency Obama Administration ignored
the legal requirements in HERA.
and transitioned them from primarily holders of mortgage credit risk
to largely distributors of mortgage credit risk to private investors More to the point, as discussed
in my comments (p.5) the claim
and the larger capital market through an expanding system of credit that "critical flaws" have been
risk transfers. With their risk profiles to the taxpayer lessened, the left unaddressed is an
assertion for which they offer
administration can act to reduce their outsized footprints and allow neither specific or empirical
them to begin to rebuild capital, making good on its commitment to evidence,
initiate the end of the conservatorship on its watch.
The second broad approach to the next phase of housing finance While "clean-up" legislation
will be necessary to hard-
reform is for the administration to maintain the GSE conservatorship wire some administrative
but undertake non-legislative actions to improve the housing finance reforms, there is no question
that, aside from capital
ecosystem in preparation for eventual legislative action. In this restoration, the necessary
scenario, the administration would craft an end-state vision that critical reforms have already
occurred (portfolios,
includes the secondary market and other reforms we propose in this pricing/volume race to zero,
paper, implement this vision as far as the administrative levers at its product approval standards,
risk management....)
disposal will allow, and then ask Congress to finish the job.
We support the second option because administratively ending

the conservatorship would preserve the GSEs’ flawed charters
that privatize profits and socialize losses. Such action would
keep in place a too big to fail duopoly that effectively crowds out This is a cliche without evidence.
With the GSEs prohibited from
competition and innovation that benefit homeowners and protect competing on price/volume they now
taxpayers. We recognize that this second approach is more difficultcompete on product and service
offerings. SIFI banks are
because it requires eventually achieving bipartisan agreement on overcapitalized and are not
legislation. portfolio lending. They are not
required to sell to the GSEs.
Further, the PLS market is largely
dead because the SIFI banks have
23 MILKEN INSTITUTE A BLUEPRINT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM OF THE HOUSING FINANCE not
SYSTEM
created the standards of
disclosure that would be
acceptable to investors.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CONCLUSION
The position taken in this

But continuing the conservatorship while undertaking administrative
paper is largely a red-
reforms is preferable to restoring a system that still has the critical herring. As they point out
flaws of the one that failed during the financial crisis. We believe above, the GSEs have
transitioned from "primary
the steps outlined in this paper would not only benefit the housing holders of mortgage credit
finance system in its own right, but also reduce the lift of the risk to largely distributors
of mortgage credit risk to
bipartisan legislation required to bring housing finance reform over investors"
the finish line.
ABOUT US
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Eric Kaplan is the director of the housing finance program within
the Milken Institute Center for Financial Markets, where he focuses
on the restoration of the U.S. housing finance ecosystem to a state
of sustainable health. Kaplan concentrates on the interplay between
government and industry stakeholders regarding the roles of public
and private capital, securitization reform, and lending and servicing
practices. Kaplan’s 25-year career in housing finance includes a wide
range of finance, legal, and policy roles, supporting a multifaceted
perspective on industry, transactional, loan-level, operational,
consumer, legal, and policy related issues. Before joining the Milken
Institute, Kaplan served as managing partner at Ranieri Strategies
LLC, where he worked closely with founding partner and chairman,
Lewis S. Ranieri, to evaluate and pursue FinTech investment
opportunities, as well as on policy initiatives. Prior to that, he served
as head of mortgage finance for Shellpoint Partners LLC, launching
its non-agency securitization platform. Kaplan is a leading industry
advocate for the creation of new and improved mortgage-backed
securitization standards and origination practices to support the safe
and scalable return of private capital to the U.S. housing finance
ecosystem. Eric serves on the board of directors of MISMO and the
Cameron Kravitt Foundation, and was an SFIG board member from
2015-2018.
Dr. Michael A. Stegman is a senior fellow at the Milken Institute

Center for Financial Markets, where he focuses on housing finance
reform and affordable housing. He is also a senior research fellow at
the Center for Household Financial Stability in the Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis, and a senior research fellow in the Center for
Community Capital at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. From 2015 to 2016, Stegman served as senior policy advisor
EXECUTIVE
ABOUT US SUMMARY
for housing on the staff at the National Economic Council, following

three and a half years as the counselor to the secretary of the
Treasury for housing finance policy. Previously, Stegman served as
a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and as director of policy and
housing for the program on human and community development
at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for six years.
Stegman is also a distinguished professor emeritus at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he taught and conducted
research on affordable housing policy as chair of the Department
of City and Regional Planning and was founding chair of the
Department of Public Policy. From 1993 to 1997, Stegman served as
assistant secretary for policy development and research at the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. During this time,
he was named by the National Journal as one of Washington’s 100
most influential decision makers.
Dr. Phillip L. Swagel is a senior fellow at the Milken Institute Center

for Financial Markets. Swagel is also a professor at the University
of Maryland School of Public Policy, where he teaches classes on
international economics and is an academic fellow at the Center
for Financial Policy at the university’s Robert H. Smith School of
Business. Swagel was assistant secretary for economic policy at the
Treasury Department from December 2006 to January 2009. In that
position, he served as a member of the TARP investment committee
and advised Secretary Paulson on all aspects of economic policy.
He previously worked at the American Enterprise Institute, the
White House Council of Economic Advisers, the International
Monetary Fund, and the Federal Reserve, and taught economics at
Northwestern University, the University of Chicago Booth School of
Business, and the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown
University.
Theodore W. Tozer is a senior fellow at the Milken Institute Center

for Financial Markets, where he helps lead the Milken Institute’s
housing finance reform work. Before joining Milken, Tozer was
EXECUTIVE
ABOUT US SUMMARY
the president of Ginnie Mae for seven years, bringing more than
30 years of experience in the mortgage, banking, and securities
industries. As president of Ginnie Mae, Tozer managed the growth
of Ginnie Mae’s government guarantees of mortgage-backed
securities (MBS) from $900 Billion to $1.73 Trillion, and more than
$460 billion in annual guarantees of MBS issuance for fiscal year
2016. Ted led the modernization of Ginnie Mae’s securitization
platform. He also transformed Ginnie Mae’s program by leading
the shift in its issuer base majority from financial institutions to
independent mortgage bankers. Before joining Ginnie Mae, Tozer
was senior vice president of capital markets at the National City
Mortgage Company (NCM) for more than 25 years, overseeing
pipeline hedging, pricing, loan sales, loan delivery, and mortgage
product credit guidelines. He was instrumental in transforming
NCM from an originate-and-hold lender to an originate-and-sell
lender. From 2000-2004 Ted served as Chairman of the Mortgage
Bankers Association (MBA) Capital Markets Committee, and as a
member of the MBA Residential Board of Governors. From 2000 to
2009 Tozer served on both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s Lender
Advisory Councils. Ted is currently a member of Fannie Mae’s
Affordable Housing Advisory Council.
EXECUTIVE
ABOUT US SUMMARY
ABOUT THE MILKEN INSTITUTE

We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank determined to increase
global prosperity by advancing collaborative solutions that
widen access to capital, create jobs, and improve health. We do
this through independent, data-driven research, action-oriented
meetings, and meaningful policy initiatives.
ABOUT THE CENTER FOR FINANCIAL MARKETS

The Center for Financial Markets promotes financial market
understanding and works to expand access to capital, strengthen—
and deepen—financial markets, and develop innovative financial
solutions to the most pressing global challenges.
©2018 Milken Institute
This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons
AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License, available at
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Brief Markup of Milken Blueprint For GSE Reform

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brief Markup of Milken Blueprint For GSE Reform

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brief Markup of Milken Blueprint For GSE Reform

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JANUARY 2 0 1 9

A Blueprint for Administrative

considerable credit for continuing to innovate and improve the

ALLOW THE GSES TO REBUILD RETAINED CAPITAL

The rationale for this recommendation is four-fold:

1. Regardless of the specific forms a reformed secondary

2. Eliminating the GSE dividends as a source of funding for

3. Stronger GSE balance sheets would protect two affordable

4. Building up the GSEs’ equity cushions would reduce the

COMPLETE THE WORK ON THE UNIFORM MORTGAGE-BACKED

Ginnie Mae provides an alternative on which to base a common

the underlying data and assumptions nor the analytic constructs

PROVIDE MORE RISK-BASED PRICING OF GUARANTEE FEES, WITH

Phillip Swagel, and Mark Zandi,

EVALUATE AND IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AFFORDABLE

While the affordable mortgage purchase requirements have the

More data-driven analysis of each of these affordable housing

IMPROVE THE TARGETING OF GSE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ACTIVITIES

EXPAND THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE COMMON SECURITIZATION

The operational, technological, and economic hurdles of building

Other barriers to entry involve GSE data, tools, and technologies

• Data – The breadth and depth of the GSE data trove,

evaluate the accuracy of appraisals. Appraisals are perhaps the

• Automated Underwriting Systems (AUS) – The GSEs’ AUS

The FHFA should also investigate the possibility of expanding the

TAILOR THE GSE FOOTPRINT

One variant that could be considered, however, is to allow GSE

Additionally, the Federal Housing Administration, the Department

Any loan that no longer fits within GSE or government mortgage

We do not recommend reducing the conforming loan limit—at

We also recommend, to the extent permitted by law, that the FHFA

1. Incremental expansion/modification of Appendix Q13 – The

technological innovation by evaluating proprietary 16“Policy on No-Action

the following points in mind as it crafts a final rule:

• Protections from regulatory action should not preclude all

lenders charged with remedying such violations.

• Distinctions in enforcement and penalties between (i) willful

3. Temporary GSE Patch extension – The CFPB should extend

4. Expand the 43 percent debt-to-income ratio (DTI) limit

include residual income tests in their guidelines. Among agency

factors. The CFPB should also evaluate ways that technology

Furthermore, because the potential consequences of excessive

5. Clarification of ATR liability for non-QM loans – The CFPB

With the GSEs in conservatorship and well along a path to

Housing Finance Oversight Board.

operational flexibility to run their programs effectively. FHA needs

STRENGTHEN COORDINATION AMONG COMPONENTS OF THE

Broader and better coordinating efforts are necessary because the

Broadly speaking, there are two plausible courses of action the

initiate the end of the conservatorship on its watch.

We support the second option because administratively ending

The position taken in this

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Michael A. Stegman is a senior fellow at the Milken Institute

for housing on the staff at the National Economic Council, following

Dr. Phillip L. Swagel is a senior fellow at the Milken Institute Center

Theodore W. Tozer is a senior fellow at the Milken Institute Center

ABOUT THE MILKEN INSTITUTE