Namely, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continue to be controlled by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) under the dictates of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Two years ago there appeared to be substantial forward movement in the prospects for long-term housing finance reform. Bipartisan legislation was put forth, the Johnson-Crapo bill, which had considerable support. In any event, the proposed legislation did not come to a floor vote. Despite this lack of resolution, leading industry groups and the Obama administration are once again calling for Congress to put into place comprehensive reform. Impeding comprehensive reform are not just differences about the goals of housing finance reform but also differences in the technical understanding of how the secondary markets need to be structured in order to accomplish the goals of a sustainable, efficient and equitable housing finance system. Nonetheless, there is consensus on a number of points important for the structuring of the housing finance system. An Issue Brief put forth last year by the Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative showcased these points of consensus.

Beyond the continued calls for congressional action, there now appears to be new thinking on how the secondary market needs to be structured for housing finance reform. Strikingly, this new thinking may herald coalescence in the housing reform debate. The Urban Institute has called for and received a number of contributions on rethinking the necessary components of reform.5 This Issue Brief is informed by a research symposium, jointly sponsored by the Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative and the Penn Institute for Urban Research, held in Washington, D.C., on June 15, 2016, for presenting and discussing several of these proposals.