navycmdr
17 minutes ago
$Boooom ! Trump Appointee Reverses Biden’s
Renter Rights Program
By Isabelle Durso March 25, 2025 3:32 pm
The new director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has quickly issued
an order to reverse the Biden administration’s renter rights program for multifamily
properties backed by Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC).
Bill Pulte, appointed by President Donald Trump to run the Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac regulator, posted a document on his X account Monday and wrote that Biden’s
directive on multifamily properties was rescinded.
The directive, which was issued by the Biden administration over the summer,
required multifamily housing providers with mortgages backed by Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac to provide tenants with a 30-day notice of a rent increase and
a lease term’s expiration, as well as a five-day grace period for late rent payments,
according to the FHFA’s website.
The Biden administration said the policy was part of a “Blueprint for a Renters
Bill of Rights” and intended to “increase fairness in the rental market” and
strengthen tenant protections, according to a January 2023 release from the
White House.
While the policy was expected to go into effect last month, it was put on hold
on Feb. 21. Pulte’s new order effectively reverses the directive.
A spokesperson for the FHFA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In his post, Pulte argued that the policy, which has also been opposed by
the National Apartment Association and the National Multifamily Housing
Council, would “increase compliance burdens for multifamily lenders and
property owners.”
Pulte also wrote in the memo that “many states and local governments have
existing laws and policies related to lease notices and grace periods for late fees.”
Since being chosen by Trump in January and confirmed last week, Pulte
has made a lot of moves as director of FHFA, including appointing himself
as chairman of the board of both Fannie and Freddie and ousting 12
members of the boards, Bisnow reported.
Pulte — who is still the head of private equity firm Pulte Partners — also
made waves by firing Freddie CEO Diana Reid and putting more than
700 of the agency’s employees on leave, according to Bisnow.
The actions come amid speculation that Pulte is likely to move Fannie
and Freddie away from government control and toward the private
sector, a move that could send mortgage rates higher, as Commercial
Observer previously reported.
navycmdr
21 minutes ago
$Booom ! Pulte terminates SPCPs, issues recision of
UDAP bulletin in slew of orders
FHFA Director Bill Pulte posted a series of signed policy
documents to his social feed
March 25, 2025, 5:19 pm By Chris Clow
In a series of posts to his account on social media platform X,
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte
published housing orders that terminate special purpose credit
programs (SPCPs) and rescinds a 2024 advisory bulletin
detailing the agency’s enforcement against unfair or deceptive
acts or practices (UDAP).
Pulte did not include separate comments with each of these
orders and directives, but Republican politicians and officials
have routinely targeted standards or regulatory requirements
they believe are “onerous” and ultimately serve to drive up
costs for consumers.
Pulte also ordered the rescission of an advisory bulletin
requiring the GSEs to each establish a “climate-related
risk management framework into its existing enterprise
risk management program.”
In addition, among the policy documents are a recission
of multifamily lease policies directing the enterprises to
require borrowers to meet “certain minimum standards
for rental payment flexibility and lease notices;” and an
order terminating Fannie Mae’s “repair all” strategy on
its inventory of real-estate owned (REO) property.
Pulte has previously commented on his philosophy leading
FHFA as one that will include a focus on fulfilling a day
one executive order from President Donald Trump directing
the government to lower housing costs.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, the Mortgage Bankers
Association (MBA) commented specifically on the UDAP
order.
“MBA supports the rescission of this advisory bulletin and
thanks Director Pulte for prioritizing this issue in response
to our members’ concerns, which we raised at the time of
the policy’s release in November and reiterated to the
director immediately upon his confirmation,” said
Bob Broeksmit, president and CEO of MBA.
“The November bulletin’s specific expectations for Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs) to conduct consumer
protection oversight of their customers wrongly established
the GSEs as compliance regulators, was duplicative of
federal and state regulatory oversight of UDAPs, and would
have negatively impacted consumers and lenders through
higher costs,” he added.
FHFA has not issued any announcements through traditional
channels on these policy changes.
JSmith5
3 hours ago
requires some capital rule to be in place
I never said said rescind the ECRF - I said change (although, admittedly, that would certainly be a change). As this is a financially related institution, law or no law, that would not certainly be desirable.
This issue of notice is a tempest in a teapot. When you publish a draft rule THERE IS NO MINIMUM COMMENT PERIOD (at least when I would have to do this on occasion, I don't recall one). The reason that folks are all worked up about this is that Calabria took an excessive amount of time with his change - and then raised it to an ungodly rate on top of this. Given that there are a lot of other moving parts to release and its going to take at least a year anyway, if I were king (or at least a duke - maybe I could be the Duke of Earl) I would publish a draft (going with the ever-popular 2.5%) and have a 90 day comment period. I may even throw in an extra 1% just to piss the stockholders off and change it back to 2.5% in the Final Rule. But I would not sit on it once the comment period is over. Another 90 days to digest the comments seems appropriate given that this issue has already been analyzed at the molecular level by every man, women and child (and maybe some other of the higher species) for at least 100 centuries. I think Newton may have even weighed in on this at some point. I think, maybe after the apple fell from the tree, he came up with 2.5%. But I would do it now.
Nats
TightCoil
8 hours ago
Notice from Mar 18 to today, Mar 25,
FNMA has had 6 consecutive
GREEEEN DAYS - And it's only Tuesday - 3 trading days left this week!
Mar 25 - $7.31 - 13,849,144 - up 21 cents - Today
Mar 24 - $7.0879 - 16,707,951 - up 71 cents
Mar 21 - $6.38 - 8,510,618
Mar 20 - $6.25 - 8,037,839
Mar 19 - $6.03 - 8,071,667
Mar 18 - $5.65 - 10,339,547
kthomp19
9 hours ago
Can anyone explain this. In reviewing the 12/31/24 financials of FMCC and FNMA, I see that FNMA drew $119.8B
from treasury back in 08-10 financial crisis. FNMA now show senior preferreds of 120.8B.
The senior prefs had an initial liquidation preference of $1B and that got increased dollar for dollar with the $119.8B worth of draws for a total of $120.8B.
FMCC drew $71.6B but shows senior preferreds of $129B. This make no sense to me. Anyone have the answer?
Check your numbers again on Freddie, its balance sheet shows $72.6B worth of seniors.
However, neither of those amounts include the off balance sheet liquidation preference. The full totals (both on and off balance sheet) are in Fannie and Freddie's 10-K forms.
Freddie Mac 2024 10-K, check p. 136 of the pdf for the $72.6B of seniors on the balance sheet, and total of $129.0B including off balance sheet.
kthomp19
9 hours ago
Familiar and incorrect. When the GSEs are released, which they will be eventually, we will see what residual value remains in the common. I do not need to file a lawsuit to reap my share of the residual value. Time will tell us more accurately than a court document.
That's not at all what I was talking about. Only a court can settle our disagreement as to whether or not the LP ratchets in the 2019 and 2021 letter agreements were a breach of the implied covenant.
There is a vast difference between harm being done, and being able to calculate damage from that harm. Lamberth was only interested in what can be objectively proved in court as factual. There is no crystal ball of what "could have" been, therefore that harm is inadmissible. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Why would any other court case be able to use counterfactual share price models? I'm not saying it's impossible, but given the precedent we have seen it sure seems like share price drop is the only real provable harm.
They could be - through some future action. But the current trending news is hinting at release with residual value.
In other words, speculative value. That's all either the juniors or commons have right now. No actual economic rights because those were removed by the NWS.
The LP ratchets didn't remove any economic rights because those were permanently removed by the NWS, and neither did they remove the speculative value because that clearly remains as evidenced by current market prices. Therefore the LP ratchets in and of themselves didn't cause any harm and they didn't breach the implied covenant.
kthomp19
9 hours ago
1. Treasury: they can make all different kinds of salads: 79%, 90% and 95%...2. Me: I am happy with $30/shares, below that I am not satisfied.
Then you better cross your fingers, like Ackman does, that Treasury exercises the warrants. You're not getting $30 per share if Treasury ends up with 90% or higher.
In fact, according to Ackman you're not getting $30 even if Treasury stays at 79.9%. His $31 price target has Treasury only getting 71%.
With all of Ackman's own assumptions, except that Treasury gets 79.9% instead of 71%, the common price target is $15.
kthomp19
9 hours ago
Any updated thoughts on cap requirements? That will be a huge swing factor in all of this. 2.5% and almost no dilution beyond government. 4.5% and it's ugly. I haven't seen a peep related to this.
You will have to be more specific.
12 USC 4612(a)(1) says that the lowest that FnF's minimum cap req (called the leverage cap req in the ERCF) can go is 2.5% of balance sheet assets. The ERCF has it at 2.5% of adjusted total assets, which are only slightly more than balance sheet assets for Fannie. Fannie's adjusted total assets as of December 31 2024 were $4.460T, while their balance sheet assets were $4.350T.
There is very little room for Pulte to lower the leverage cap req.
The ERCF's risk-based cap req is split into four parts: total capital (8.0%), CET1 capital (4.5%), Tier 1 capital (6.0%), and adjusted total capital (8.0%). All those percentages are of risk-weighted assets. Fannie's risk-weight assets as of December 31 2024 were $1.364T.
Pulte has the authority to set the risk-based cap req by 12 USC 4611. That law is very broad and allows him to set it just about wherever he likes.
12 USC 4614(a) requires the FHFA director to give each of Fannie and Freddie one of four capital classifications outside of conservatorship:
1) "Adequately capitalized" (meets both the minimum and risk-based cap req)
2) "Undercapitalized" (meets the minimum cap req but not risk-based)
3) "Significantly undercapitalized" (meets neither cap req, but core capital is at least half the minimum cap req)
4) "Critically undercapitalized" (meets neither cap req, core capital is less than half the minimum cap req)
Without the buffers, the minimum cap req is greater than the risk-based one right now anyway so it would control outside of conservatorship. That renders Pulte's authority to lower the risk-based cap req mostly moot: he could lower it to zero and FnF would still be "significantly undercapitalized" outside of conservatorship if they don't meet the minimum cap req (the one Pulte doesn't have the authority to lower very much).
What Pulte really can do to help is eliminate the capital buffers in the ERCF. Those restrict FnF's ability to pay distributions (like dividends) and are quite large compared to the base cap reqs.
So talk of lowering the cap reqs is basically useless due to 12 USC 4612(a)(1). We should instead be asking Pulte to eliminate the PCCBA and PLBA buffers.
TightCoil
11 hours ago
Mar 25
Go Fannie Mae - All The Way - Freddie Mac - Load Up and Don't Look Back
Recap of our PPS since Mar 7 which was Day 39 of over $5 when we were at $5.84. Then the next trading Day (Mar 10)) we went BELOW $5 to $4.91, but rebounded swimmingly the next Day (Mar 11) to $5.19 and hit $6.11 on Mar 14...
Mar 25 - $7.31 - 13,849,144 - up 21 cents - Today
Mar 24 - $7.0879 - 16,707,951 - up 71 cents
Mar 21 - $6.38 - 8,510,618
Mar 20 - $6.25 - 8,037,839
Mar 19 - $6.03 - 8,071,667
Mar 18 - $5.65 - 10,339,547
Mar 17 - $5.82 - 9,309,100
Mar 14 - $6.11 - 16,518,200
Mar 13 - $5.50 - 5,951,400
Mar 12 - $5.65 - 9,589,600
Mar 11 - $5.19 - 10,480,900
Mar 10 - $4.91 - 16,783,700
Mar 7 -- $5.84 - 23,007,600
Trade like a pro: Leverage real-time discussions and market-moving ideas to outperform.
RickNagra
1 hour ago
jacklanvo99
3 hours ago
Hot Features
Premium
