Secondary mortgage market participants generally support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s proposed “right to cure” a mortgage that inadvertently breaches the qualified mortgage 3 percent points-and-fees cap – but they want to see it made more assignee-friendly. Earlier this year, the CFPB proposed allowing a limited cure for a points-and-fee violation if the creditor in good faith intended to originate the loan as a QM under the bureau’s ability-to-repay rule and the loan otherwise meets the requirements of a QM. A refund of the overage would have to be paid to the consumer and the party seeking to cure the violation (either creditor or assignee) would have to follow certain policies and procedures for post-consummation review of loans. In its comment letter to the CFPB, Fannie Mae suggested...

About $179.6 billion of newly-originated home mortgages were securitized during the first quarter of 2014, resulting in a securitization rate of 76.4 percent, according to a new Inside MBS & ABS market analysis. The securitization rate was down slightly from 78.5 percent for all of last year and 78.8 percent during the fourth quarter. Historically, the rate peaked in 2009, when 84.4 percent of new originations were securitized. In the conventional conforming market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securitization volume ($126.4 billion) actually exceeded...[Includes one data chart]

Even though the risk-sharing targets set for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been all but met this year, expect the two government-sponsored enterprises to come to market with risk-sharing transactions at least once a quarter, with the likely result of both firms exceeding the 2014 target “by at least” $20 billion, predicted an analysis by Wells Fargo Securities. The FHFA’s 2014 Conservatorship Scorecard directs the GSEs to reduce taxpayers’ risks by increasing the role of private capital in the market via several strategies, including tripling the credit risk transfer goals to $90 billion in 2014 from $30 billion in 2013. Year-to-date, Fannie Mae’s Connecticut Avenue Securities program has already achieved...

We continue to hear plenty of talk about mortgage mergers and acquisitions with deal announcements likely to come between early July and late August.

A new audit released this week by the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s official watchdog found that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac suffered $158 million of “financial harm” due to excessively priced lender-placed or “force-placed” insurance policies in 2012 alone. The FHFA-OIG audit notes that several state financial regulators found that the LPI rates in their states were excessive. The excessive costs were driven up by “profit-sharing arrangements under which servicers were paid to steer business to LPI providers. Such arrangements often took the form of commission structures and reinsurance deals,” according to the OIG.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency late last week announced it reached a nearly $100 million settlement with RBS Securities to settle allegations tied to non-agency MBS bought by Freddie Mac from 2005 to 2007, but the deal represents just a fraction of the firm’s remaining exposure. The $99.5 million settlement only resolves claims against RBS in FHFA v. Ally Financial Inc. in the Southern District of New York. Ally Financial is the successor company to GMAC-RFC, a now defunct non-agency MBS issuer.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are expected to continue issuing more risk-transfer deals even though both GSEs have effectively reached their 2014 targets. But some of the potential upside for investors has dissipated, according to separate analyses by Fitch Ratings and Wells Fargo Securities. Tight pricing on mortgage risk transfer securities issued by Fannie and Freddie indicates a “growing appetite for this relatively new and unique form of mortgage risk,” noted Fitch.

A recently issued advisory by Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s conservator noting that the two GSEs should only approve mortgage servicing sales where the transactions “are consistent” sound business practices comes as part of a renewed federal and state focus on servicing, officials note. Although Fannie and Freddie have, for years, had minimum capital requirements for mortgage companies that want to become seller/servicers, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and state regulators are now exploring codifying a capital minimum for nonbanks, according to industry officials and state regulators.

Any action that the Federal Housing Finance Agency takes in setting GSE guaranty fees should take into account the agency’s conservatorship duty to direct economic stakeholders, including shareholders, noted a coalition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac investors. In a letter to FHFA Director Mel Watt Wednesday, Investors Unite Executive Director Tim Pagliara urged the agency head to take into account “the critical purpose of setting appropriate guaranty fees,” noting that the Finance Agency does not have a mandate as conservator to run Fannie and Freddie as not-for-profit entities.