A recap of the Advocacy Committee’s April 2026 meetings with FHFA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, and Ginnie Mae.
Members of the TMC Advocacy Committee traveled to Washington, DC last week to meet with FHFA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, and Ginnie Mae. The trip used the 2026 Policy Issues Briefing Booklet as the basis for each meeting and focused on four issues impacting members today: credit reporting costs, AI governance, Ginnie Mae issuer eligibility, and condominium policy.
The committee’s approach was consistent across every room: support safety and soundness, while ensuring policies work in practice.
Who attended
The trip was led by President & CEO Jodi Hall and Advocacy Committee Chair Amy Azorandia, CMB. Committee members on the trip included Sarah Gonzales, Bryan Traylor, CMB, AMP, Erin Dee, MBA, Feliks Viner, James Brody, Esq., Marc Reneau, Nicole Booth, Patrick Ervin, Tammie Gravlee, CMB, AMP, Scott Alexander, CMB, Teresa Rose, CMB, CRMP, and Tracey King. Ashleigh Alexander supported the team on-site.
What we set out to do
Using the Policy Issues Briefing Booklet shared with each agency, the committee aligned around the practical, real-world impacts of current policy particularly where cost, timing, or operational complexity directly affects borrower affordability and access to credit.
What happened in DC
Credit reporting costs and market structure
The committee raised concerns around the rise in credit report costs and the structure of the tri-bureau system. The position TMC carried into the meetings was that competition at the score level alone does not address concentration when access to the underlying consumer credit data remains controlled by the same three providers.
Agencies acknowledged the increased attention on pricing and competition at the score level. There was less recognition of the broader structural issue around the concentration of control over credit data itself. The committee opened the door for continued dialogue, particularly around transparency and the need to evaluate the full credit reporting ecosystem rather than scoring models alone.
Artificial intelligence governance
The committee engaged with both GSEs on their newly released AI frameworks, with Freddie Mac Guide Section 1302.8 anchoring much of the conversation. The agencies reinforced that AI governance is now a priority and an expectation, not optional.
TMC’s key message was the need for clarity and alignment, particularly for lenders operating across both GSEs. Differences between Freddie Mac’s prescriptive framework and Fannie Mae’s principles-based approach were acknowledged but not yet resolved. This remains an active area where additional guidance is likely needed, particularly around definitions, documentation, vendor oversight, and implementation expectations.
Ginnie Mae issuer eligibility
The committee raised a targeted but impactful issue: the two-year tenure requirement for servicing leadership at the applying company, regardless of prior Ginnie Mae servicing experience. With independent mortgage banks now representing approximately 94% of Ginnie Mae issuance, leadership mobility tied to mergers, acquisitions, and strategic hiring is common. The current rule can disqualify highly experienced professionals based on tenure alone.
TMC’s recommended approach is six months of tenure at the applying company combined with five years of prior Ginnie Mae issuer/servicer experience, supported by standard employment verification, applicable to both new approvals and post-merger approvals.
The concern was heard, but the response was more stoic. There was acknowledgment that the issue had not been elevated in this way before, but no immediate indication of change. This will require continued advocacy and industry pressure.
Condominium project eligibility
The condominium discussion was one of the most substantive of the trip. The committee focused on three points: the increase in reserve requirements from 10% to 15%, the elimination of Limited Review, and the timing mismatch with HOA budget cycles.
FHFA and the GSEs acknowledged these concerns, including the potential for higher HOA dues and reduced warrantable inventory, while reinforcing their focus on long-term project stability. The most productive outcome was engagement: the agencies heard clearly that timing and implementation matter just as much as policy intent.
Themes the committee carried into every room
- Clarity supports compliance.
- Transparency supports efficiency.
- Competition supports affordability.
- Consistent standards support innovation.
- Balanced policy supports access to credit.
- Operational insight strengthens policy outcomes.
What’s next
The committee has already submitted follow-up positions on three of the four core issues, delivering on commitments made in each meeting. Other next steps include:
- Working with industry partners, including MBA, where alignment exists.
- Continuing direct dialogue with FHFA, including quarterly follow-ups.
- Identifying opportunities where TMC members can participate in pilots or provide data-driven input.
The trip reinforced something important: TMC’s voice is being heard, especially when the cooperative brings practical, operator-level insight. The agencies may not move quickly, but they are listening. The ability to show how policy plays out in real transactions, with real borrowers, continues to be the strongest lever.
The focus over the next 90 days is to maintain that momentum, following up where commitments were made and identifying the next opportunities to advance each issue.