The shareholders want the SCOTUS to reverse the sweep. They argue that if the FHFA is unconstitutional, then all of its actions were illegal.

After a billion-dollar event, lenders are significantly more likely to increase the share of mortgages they securitize.

FHFA’s Calabria said capital rules for Fannie and Freddie don’t take place in a vacuum; they influence other financial decisions as well.

A lack of consistency in terminology used by the GSEs makes it impossible for the FHFA to assess the cybersecurity risks they face.

If all goes to plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will retain most of their earnings beginning with the third quarter.

A $1 billion line of credit might be small potatoes by GSE standards, but it’s likely to elicit whistles among private lenders.

California remains the mother lode for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the first six months of 2019, the GSEs purchased $58.1 billion in loans from the Golden State.

Although the non-QM portion of the non-agency market accounted for less than $10 billion in 2018, it could absorb more than $50 billion in former patch loans if it continues its current annual growth rate.

On the issue of FHFA’s constitutionality, the court ruled for the plaintiffs. But rather than invalidate the net worth sweep, the court struck the “for-cause” provision from HERA.

The issues have been argued over so long, and the views of key players are so well known, that the plan itself couldn’t help but disappoint.