Is This Move By Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a Mistake?

Housing is struggling, and mortgages are increasingly out of reach for many homebuyers. The possible connection between these two conditions has not gone unnoticed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, regulator of mortgage heavies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac , and changes are on tap to alleviate the problem - by making mortgages more available to those with dodgy credit.

Mortgage buybacks have made banks skittish

At the heart of the problem is the understandable reluctance of lending banks to revisit the era of mortgage buybacks. In the years following the subprime mortgage meltdown, banks like Bank of America were required to repurchase great swaths of these shoddy loans from Fannie and Freddie, finally paying out billions in settlements to each entity in order to put the whole issue to bed permanently.

Since then, mortgage rules have tightened considerably. Now, Fannie and Freddie will only buy mortgages that fit the new "qualified mortgage" standards, which lean heavily toward making certain that borrowers can truly repay the loan. Lenders, still jittery from the subprime crisis, have layered extra requirements for borrowers on top of qualified mortgage criteria - causing mortgage-making to slow to a crawl.

Are the new rules too lenient?

In an effort to loosen things up in the mortgage market, the FHFA, Fannie, Freddie, and mortgage lenders have negotiated a new set of less-onerous rules for lenders. Some of the changes announced by FHFA chief Mel Watt at a recent meeting of the Mortgage Bankers Association include dropping from 5% to 3% the required down payment on some loans destined for sale to Fannie or Freddie. To allay lenders' fears regarding buybacks, specific criteria has been established to identify fraud in mortgage loans, including issues like data errors, misrepresentations, and title issues. A resolution process for disputes between the housing agencies and lenders regarding buybacks is also in the works.

The hope is that banks and other mortgage lenders will extend credit to a wider population of borrowers, some of whom may have less-than-stellar credit. Currently, most loans purchased by Fannie and Freddie have borrower credit scores around 742 - though both agencies accept scores as low as 620, the limit below which a borrower is considered subprime.

Is the mortgage industry inching toward a return to risky lending practices? Perhaps not. There seems to be quite a lot of wiggle room in the above credit scores for banks to expand the definition of a "safe" borrower. Even loans with scores below 660 are performing better these days, with mortgages written since 2012 showing fewer delinquencies than earlier loans, according to a recent report from Black Knight .

In addition, instituting the 3% down payment rule would bring Fannie and Freddie in-line with the Federal Housing Administration's own 3% down payment criteria. Just like other borrowers who put down less than 20%, these buyers would be required to purchase private mortgage insurance, as well.

Ultimately, the housing recovery may depend more upon the movement of interest rates than any other variable. Housing affordability is at a very low point, according to analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, and changing these rules probably won't increase mortgage business for lenders above 4% next year. The factor that would have the most positive effect on housing would be a drop in interest rates to around 3%.

But, low rates won't be around forever, and that may be what regulators and lenders are concerned about: how to spur more mortgage-lending once rates begin to rise in earnest. Pushing the concept of home ownership can be a slippery slope, however, as the housing crisis clearly showed. As regulators and lenders begin to peel away the restrictions on mortgage lending, the memories of the recent past will, hopefully, keep them from going too far, too fast.

Top dividend stocks for the next decade

The smartest investors know that dividend stocks simply crush their non-dividend paying counterparts over the long term. That's beyond dispute. They also know that a well-constructed dividend portfolio creates wealth steadily, while still allowing you to sleep like a baby. Knowing how valuable such a portfolio might be, our top analysts put together a report on a group of high-yielding stocks that should be in any income investor's portfolio. To see our free report on these stocks, just click here .

The article Is This Move By Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a Mistake? originally appeared on

Amanda Alix has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Bank of America. The Motley Fool owns shares of Bank of America. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days . We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy .

Copyright © 1995 - 2014 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy .

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

In This Story


Other Topics


Latest Markets Videos

    The Motley Fool

    Founded in 1993 in Alexandria, VA., by brothers David and Tom Gardner, The Motley Fool is a multimedia financial-services company dedicated to building the world's greatest investment community. Reaching millions of people each month through its website, books, newspaper column, radio show, television appearances, and subscription newsletter services, The Motley Fool champions shareholder values and advocates tirelessly for the individual investor. The company's name was taken from Shakespeare, whose wise fools both instructed and amused, and could speak the truth to the king -- without getting their heads lopped off.

    Learn More