Skip to main content

FHFA Announces Representation and Warranty Framework

Philip R. Stein

Lack of Certainty Facing Lenders

Last week, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced a new “representation and warranty framework” for conventional loans sold or delivered to Fannie and Freddie after January 1, 2013. In a clear acknowledgment of the lack of certainty facing lenders in this era of rampant repurchase demands, the agency’s announcement sought to clarify lenders’ future exposure to potential repurchase liabilities.

Two key components of the new guidelines are that:

  1. Lenders will be relieved from repurchase exposure if the loan sold or delivered meets certain performance thresholds (such as if the borrower made three years of consecutive, on-time payments), and
  2. Exclusions from representation and warranty-related liability will subsequently be detailed for violations of unrelated defaults.

Banks Spurred to Increase Lending

The FHFA evidently is intent on spurring big banks to increase their mortgage lending activity, rather than withholding funds from prospective borrowers for fear of being subjected to additional future repurchase and indemnification liability.

Of course, the GSEs‘┬ádemands to date upon the big banks have merely been a prelude to demands by those same big banks that third-party loan originators pay the big banks “repurchase” or “indemnification” amounts — regardless of whether the banks actually acquiesced to the GSEs’ demands on them (or should have acquiesced without a spirited fight), and regardless of the fact that the GSEs’ demands relate specifically to alleged breaches of contracts between the big banks and the GSEs.

This new framework unfortunately does not officially apply to “legacy” loans sold to the GSEs in recent years, or even to loans that will be sold before year-end 2012. We hope nonetheless that the FHFA’s tacit acknowledgment that many types of alleged origination-related “defects” have nothing to do with loan performance will be instructive to courts.

The purported breach of a rep or warranty is, for example, likely not the true reason for a default — or a GSE’s supposed “loss” on the loan — when a borrower made consistent and timely payments before losing her job.

By pretending otherwise, the big banks and the GSEs have vastly expanded the universe of put-back demands for some time now, at great cost to correspondents, and with little regard for elementary logic, let alone causal analysis.

Development Conference March 15, 2023
Suzanne M. Amaducci and keynote speaker Jeff Krasnoff, Chief Executive Officer of Rialto Capital Management, discuss the state of real estate debt markets amid ongoing economic uncertainty at Bilzin Sumberg’s 4th Annual Development Conference.
Blog November 2, 2022
As claims based on pre-2008 loans sold and securitized in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts are still being resolved, industry analysts are bracing for a new wave of indemnification claims and put-back attempts. Credit Suisse Securities and Bank of America have both agreed to make...
Blog February 18, 2022
Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dealt a major blow to mortgage investors in two parallel actions pending for the past few years. The impact proved to be fatal to one of the actions, which was dismissed in its entirety. The other one was barely left standing. ...