Why It Matters

The House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance held a hearing last week Wednesday on reinsurance and credit risk transfers, producing a rare moment of bipartisan agreement on tools to protect taxpayers from mortgage losses. The Trump administration's active pursuit of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac privatization gave the session unusual urgency, with witnesses warning that any conservatorship exit must codify existing risk-transfer mechanisms or leave taxpayers exposed.

The Big Picture

The April 22 hearing, titled "Diversifying Risk: The Benefits of Reinsurance and Credit Risk Transfers," examined how private capital markets can absorb mortgage credit risk currently sitting on government balance sheets. Credit risk transfer programs at Fannie and Freddie were established to reduce taxpayer exposure by shifting a portion of mortgage default risk to private investors through securities issuances. The Trump administration has been actively pursuing a partial sale of the GSEs, making the durability of those programs a pressing policy question. The hearing follows more than a decade of failed comprehensive housing finance reform legislation, with Congress holding multiple hearings on GSE restructuring dating back to 2011 without producing a statutory overhaul.

What They're Saying

The hearing's central tension was whether current CRT structures adequately transfer risk to private capital or leave too much with taxpayers.

  • Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Ranking Member of the subcommittee, opened by flagging a structural concern: "Since 2022-23, the enterprises have shifted toward higher attachment points for CRT. Some have even argued that this leaves more risk with taxpayers."
  • Jerry Theodorou, Director of Finance, Insurance & Trade at the R Street Institute, pushed back against proposals for a federal reinsurance backstop: "Reinsurance achieves a spread of risk, whereas if you remove the providers of the risk from the global environment and it's strictly done in the United States, then you're concentrating risk."

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) framed the hearing's core question as one of accountability: who bears losses when they arrive, and whether private capital is being brought in at the right layers of risk. The chair pressed witnesses on whether higher attachment points were leaving the GSEs retaining expected losses that markets should price and absorb.

One member, who identified housing conditions in Colorado as increasingly untenable, put the stakes in concrete terms: "Home prices have surged nearly 50%, and rent is up nearly 25% in just the last five years alone." The remark drew no pushback from either side of the aisle.

The hearing's most forward-looking exchange came when a member asked what safeguards must be embedded in any GSE privatization plan. Dr. Susan Wachter of the Wharton School responded with a clear directive: "In any privatization plan, in any contemplation of privatization, we absolutely should preserve the CRT function. That should be codified in the privatization."

Wachter also argued that CRT markets function as a superior early warning system compared to traditional indicators like delinquencies or foreclosures, noting that "default and foreclosure happen after the crisis," while CRT pricing reacted appropriately during both Hurricane Harvey and the COVID-19 economic shock.

Political Stakes

The hearing carries direct implications for the Trump administration's GSE privatization timeline. As of January 2026, there was no firm plan for how to take the mortgage giants public, despite the administration directing Wall Street banks to prepare for a potential offering. A congressional record establishing bipartisan support for CRT strengthens the policy case for privatization by demonstrating that risk-transfer tools can protect taxpayers during the transition.

FHFA Director Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee, has maintained and expanded CRT programs. The administration also launched a $20 billion sovereign reinsurance facility for Persian Gulf maritime shipping in March, a separate but structurally similar public-private risk-sharing arrangement that reflects the White House's broader comfort with government-backed reinsurance in specific contexts.

For Flood, the hearing reinforces his profile as a credible voice on housing finance at a pivotal moment. A joint op-ed with House Financial Services Committee Chair Rep. French Hill (R-AR) signals an aligned leadership team with legislative ambitions on housing policy heading into the 2026 midterms.

The Other Side

The Defense Credit Union Council submitted a letter ahead of the hearing urging balanced risk-sharing reforms to protect credit union access and housing affordability. Their concern, that expanded CRT or reinsurance requirements could raise costs for smaller lenders dependent on GSE guarantees, represents a counterweight to pure market-efficiency arguments. Democrats have also raised concerns that GSE privatization could disproportionately benefit hedge funds and investors holding GSE preferred stock, a tension that bipartisan agreement on CRT mechanics does not fully resolve.

What's Next

The Reinsurance Association of America has been pressing Congress for NFIP modernization and private flood insurance reforms, issues the subcommittee is expected to take up as part of ongoing reauthorization discussions. Analysts at Jefferies have estimated a potential GSE conservatorship exit as early as 2026 or 2027, which would make any follow-up legislation on CRT codification time-sensitive. The global reinsurance market's July 1 mid-year renewal cycle will also provide a fresh data point on whether private capital is adequately pricing catastrophe risk.

The Bottom Line

After 15 years of failed GSE reform legislation, the hearing suggested Congress may be building the bipartisan record it needs to finally act, with CRT codification as the most durable point of agreement.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.