Free Markets, Free People


Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac continue to suck down taxpayer money

Two of the the institutions most responsible for the housing crisis, despite Barney Frank’s claims to the contrary, are still in crisis themselves (a third is the very institution Frank called home – Congress).

Fannie Mae said Wednesday it lost $2.4 billion during the fourth quarter of 2011 and $16.9 billion for the full year.

It has had worse years, remarkably. Fannie lost about $60 billion in 2008 and $72 billion the following year–two of the 10 largest corporate losses ever. Sibling Freddie Mac is responsible for a third, a $51 billion loss in 2008.

These two institutions, both set up by and working at the behest of the federal government, have a very checkered history. 

For those who have always wondered what “Fannie Mae” stands for, it is the Federal National Mortgage Association, begun in freddie_mac_and_fannie_mae1938 during the Great Depression as a part of New Deal.  So those who argue that it is a “private corporation” are simply uninformed.

Both organizations have a single purpose: “to expand the secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgages in the form of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), allowing lenders to reinvest their assets into more lending and in effect increasing the number of lenders in the mortgage market by reducing the reliance on thrifts.”

As it turns out, they got way out on a limb with their purpose, driven by government policy and crony capitalism.

What set off the debacle through which we suffered?  Here’s the short story:

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The Act amended the charter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reflect Congress’ view that the GSEs "… have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families in a manner consistent with their overall public purposes, while maintaining a strong financial condition and a reasonable economic return;"  For the first time, the GSEs were required to meet "affordable housing goals" set annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and approved by Congress. The initial annual goal for low-income and moderate-income mortgage purchases for each GSE was 30% of the total number of dwelling units financed by mortgage purchases and increased to 55% by 2007.

In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.  Additionally, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans.

George H.W. Bush began the slide and Bill Clinton lit the afterburners.  And while the industry attempted to take advantage of the situation it also needed an easing of credit requirements to meet the policy goals of the CRA.  And anyway, the Federal government was guaranteeing this mess.  Crony capitalism at its finest.

The warning signs about the eventual end were everywhere.  And any number of people issued those warnings:

In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation’s move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."

Also in the New York Times, Alex Berenson reported in 2003 that Fannie Mae’s risk was much larger than is commonly held.

The eventual end to such nonsense was almost precisely foretold:

In his 2006 book, America’s Financial Apocalypse, Mike Stathis also warned about the risk of Fannie Mae helping to trigger the financial crisis: “With close to $2 trillion in debt between Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae alone, as well as several trillion held by commercial banks, failure of just one GSE or related entity could create a huge disaster that would easily eclipse the Savings & Loan Crisis of the late 1980s. This would certainly devastate the stock, bond and real estate markets. Most likely, there would also be an even bigger mess in the derivatives market, leading to a global sell-off in the capital markets. Not only would investors get crushed, but taxpayers would have to bail them out since the GSEs are backed by the government. Everyone would feel the effects. At its bottom, I would estimate a 30 to 35 percent correction for the average home. And in ‘hot spots’ such as Las Vegas, selected areas of Northern and Southern California and Florida, home prices could plummet by 55 to 60 percent from peak values.”

Bingo.

And here we are.

The cost to you for this the mess created and driven by government policy and taken advantage of by lenders?  A lot.

Both Freddie and Fannie are supposedly “for profit” corporations. Profits, however, have been in short supply (but bonuses to top cronies haven’t):

During the three years leading up to the house price peak, Fannie reported annual profits of between $4.1 billion and $6.3 billion, and Freddie, $2.1 billion to $2.9 billion. During the five years since, Fannie lost a cumulative $163 billion, and Freddie, which hasn’t yet reported fourth quarter results for 2011, $91 billion.

Both Fannie and Freddie pay dividends to the Treasury Department as a condition of their government sponsorship, but both have regularly requested larger sums than they have paid. For example, Fannie said Wednesday that it paid $2.6 billion in dividends to the Treasury during its fourth quarter, but that it would soon submit a request for $4.6 billion to offset losses.

Fannie says it requested a total of $116 billion from the Treasury since the fourth quarter of 2008 and paid about $20 billion in dividends. Fannie requested $72 billion and paid $15 billion.

Or, as the article breaks it out in the nation of 309 million, the cost is $1,300 for each American household – owner or renter.

This is what happens when government’s decide they know better than markets.  When they let unsound political policies that create perverse financial incentives rule the day.   When they put financial prudence behind political gain. 

Hopefully we’ll learn something out of this.  But we won’t if each side continues to deny its role in this mess.   It was government who set the perverse policy and industry to took advantage of it. However, what should be clear to anyone is that if there had been no policy, there’d have been nothing of which to take advantage.

As usual, the tax payers is left holding the multi-trillion dollar bag for this monumental screw-up.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

11 Responses to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac continue to suck down taxpayer money

  • No no! There were crony studies done that show clearly there was no crony business going on here! This was caused by greed and unregulated Wall Street market evil Republican type rich people, trust us! The government skew had nothing to do with it! Really! And Freddie and Fannie didn’t cause any of this! Most of their paper was based on sound loans which is why they….uh….keep….having to be bailed out to the tune of billions and billions year after year after year….because…they’re investments were all…uh….sound…..uh…….Can I buy a vowel?

  • “The cost to you for this the mess created and driven by government policy and taken advantage of by lenders?”

    Minor point, here, McQ… The regular mortgage market was being pressed by the Clinton regime to make what were essentially CRAP loans. They were aware of the increased risks, and RATIONALLY sought to off-load those risks to the F-ies…or anybody else they could.

    • @Ragspierre Which is why I said earlier in the post, “And while the industry attempted to take advantage of the situation it also needed an easing of credit requirements to meet the policy goals of the CRA.”

      BTW, I don’t fault the industry for taking advantage of the situation necessarily – the government provided all the incentive necessary to do so.

      • @McQandO It provided the stick…threatened and executed administration oppression…AND the carrot…a way to off-load the universally recognized increased risks. I’ve no doubt some took advantage. I also have no doubt some were simply trying to accommodate the reality of a VASTLY distorted market. Appreciate your noting that the F-ies were CREATED to distort markets in the first instance.

  • No no! There were crony studies done that show clearly there was no crony business going on here! This was caused by greed and unregulated Wall Street market evil Republican type rich people, trust us! The government skew had nothing to do with it! Really! And Freddie and Fannie didn’t cause any of this! Most of their paper was based on sound loans which is why they….uh….keep….having to be bailed out to the tune of billions and billions year after year after year….because…their investments were all…uh….sound…..uh…….Can I buy a vowel?

    • @looker Prof Jenny will be along after the Buffy seminar to set you straight.

      • @DocD I so admire her mind…. And (if you buy that) I read Playboy for teh excellent articles…

      • @DocD I doubt professor Jenny will be along at all on this issue. There are numbers and facts and such posted. Something he will hesitate to just come in an try to wave his magic hands over to make go away. No, this is sunlight to a vampire territory here on this post.

      • @DocD Still a no show doc, though he has jumped on the Obama oil barge procession.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet