Townhall
Finance...
Fannie
and Freddie - Building on the
House of Cards
by Bob Beauprez
November 25, 2011
The
collapse of the sub-prime mortgage
loan market precipitated the current economic recession. Yet three
years and
$170 billion in taxpayer funded bailouts later, Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, the
two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) that owned or guaranteed
the vast
majority of those loans, remain virtually unchanged except that the
giant is
even bigger and more costly to maintain.
Recently
published reports of $12.8
million of annual compensation bonuses paid on top of already
substantial
salaries to ten executives at the two GSEs for achieving “modest goals”
captured a few headlines and once again highlighted some of the
paradoxes and
problems of combining a supposedly privately owned and operated
enterprise with
conflicting public policy and politically motivated social objectives.
While
the public and most politicians
are repulsed by bailouts and disparate executive compensation, little
outrage
is directed at the two biggest offenders, Fannie and Freddie. As
pointed out by
Investor’s Business Daily, of the $700 billion in TARP bailouts to
private
financial institutions, more than 97 cents of every bailout dollar
either has
already or is expected to be repaid. Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie have
sucked
up $170 billion to stay afloat, and a recent CBO report to Congress
projects
the GSEs will need $51 billion more to survive over the next ten years.
Only in
government could failed management of this magnitude be deemed worthy
of a
bonus.
President
Obama, who blasted bonuses
to other bankers as “shameful” and the “height of irresponsibility”,
has been
curiously silent. This is the same President who has had no problem
intervening
directly regarding compensation and management of other financial
institutions
that got federal bailout assistance. There will be “no more bonuses for
companies that taxpayers are helping out” he said back in 2009, “as
that would
be a violation of ‘our fundamental values’.”
Indeed,
the Dodd-Frank financial
reform behemoth signed by Obama grants expanded authority to the
government to
seize and control the management of banks, but the legislation is
notably mute
regarding Fannie and Freddie.
Obama’s
silent indifference also
stands in stark contrast to the campaigning Obama of 2008 who stated,
“I’ve
always said that any action with respect to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
needs to
put taxpayers first, and can’t under any circumstances bail out
shareholders or
senior management of that company.”
When
pressed for a comment on the
recently announced bonuses, all that the President’s spokesman Jay
Carney would
say was, “These entities are independent and therefore they are
independent
decisions. The White House is not involved, and nor should it be.”
To
pretend that Fannie and Freddie are
“independent” might be a convenient dodge for Obama, but the troubled
GSEs are
anything but on their own. On September 6, 2008 the Bush Administration
took
both GSEs into federal conservatorship in a plan promoted by Treasury
Secretary
Henry Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Tim Geithner, then
President of
the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Accordingly from that point forward,
the
newly created Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) controlled the
GSEs
rather than just provide regulatory oversight. In exchange for bailing
out the
mortgage giants the government got a majority ownership interest with a
preferred stock equity position. In late 2010, the lame duck Democrat
Congress
removed the credit ceiling restraint previously imposed on the GSEs and
opened
the checkbook of the U.S. Treasury to unlimited credit advances to
continually
bailout Fannie and Freddie.
While
it might be politically
convenient for Obama to pretend that Fannie and Freddie are untouchable
independents, the agencies have been and continue to be vehicles of
choice used
by liberal Democrats to further an affordable housing objective and
curry favor
with the electorate. After all, who can object to a goal of more people
owning
their own home – until we all have to pay the consequences of too many
of those
loans defaulting?
Key
Members of Congress were concerned
about the GSEs more than ten years ago. A highly critical report from
the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight (OFHEO), then the
regulator of
Fannie and Freddie, precipitated hearings and calls from Congressional
Republicans and the Bush Administration for more oversight.
Democrats,
particularly members of the
Congressional Black Caucus, said the problem was with the regulator and
not the
GSEs. During a House Financial Services Subcommittee hearing in 2004
Gregory
Meeks (D-NY) erupted with, “I’m p***ed off at OFHEO, because if it
weren’t for
you we wouldn’t be here in the first place.” Lacy Clay (D-MO) said the
hearing
amounted to “the political lynching of Franklin Raines.” Raines was
then the
CEO of Fannie Mae, and referring to the home mortgages held or
guaranteed by
Fannie Mae, he told Congress that “these assets are so riskless” that
reserve
requirements for potential loss was a non-issue.
“We
do not have a crisis at Freddie
Mac, and in particular, at Fannie Mae,” Maxine Waters (D-CA) said
during the
hearing, “Everything in the 1992 Act (The Federal Housing Enterprises
Financial
Safety and Soundness Act) has worked just fine.” Waters agreed with her
Black
Caucus colleagues that OFHEO – not Fannie or Freddie – was the problem
for
blowing the whistle on the GSEs, and that Congress should be focused on
regulating the regulator. “What we need to do is to focus on the
regulator, and
this must be done in a manner so as to not impede on the affordable
housing mission.”
With
the legislation passed in 1992,
Waters and her colleagues mandated the GSEs to “assist primary lenders
to make
housing credit available in areas with concentrations of low-income and
minority families.” By 2000, HUD required 50% of the loans funded by
Fannie and
Freddie to go to low-income borrowers.
Later,
Waters pressured the GSEs to
develop no-down-payment mortgages. “When you look at the philosophy
behind down
payments, it doesn’t make any sense anymore,” she said. “There are
people who
will never have a down payment.” By 2007 26% of all mortgages purchased
by
Fannie Mae were low or zero down payment. When significant numbers of
these
high-risk loans to minorities ended in foreclosure, Waters and her
Black Caucus
friends said it was because of “racism” and “reverse redlining.” The
woman who
led the fight to make loans available to virtually anyone who asked now
blamed
“predatory lenders” for pushing low-income borrowers into subprime
mortgages
they couldn’t afford.
The
obsession with ever more lax
underwriting standards and ever greater affordable housing and home
ownership
objectives eventually led to the creation of the NINA (No Income/No
Asset)
mortgage at Freddie Mac. The NINA was created to accommodate “consumers
who
cannot, for whatever reason, provide personal financial information,”
as
explained in an internal 2004 memo directed to Richard Syron, the CEO
of
Freddie Mac. “Under this mortgage offering, borrowers do not disclose
income or
assets to the lender – the borrower’s ability to repay the loan is not
analyzed
or considered.”
The
Chief Risk Officer for Freddie
Mac, David Andrukonis, warned Syron in 2004 of the risk of NINA loans,
and
recommended pulling the plug. Syron ignored the warning. “He said we
couldn’t
afford to say no to anyone,” Adrukonis told the New York Times. Freddie
continued buying NINA loans until November, 2007.
Rep.
Barney Frank (D-MA), who has his
fingerprints all over decades of the evolution of the GSEs and the
financial
dilemma that has resulted, is more candid about how liberal Democrats
perceive
Fannie and Freddie than Obama now wants to admit. In a 2010 CNBC
interview,
Frank, then the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee with
direct
oversight responsibility for the agencies, said that Fannie and Freddie
are
essentially a “public policy instrument of the government.” Frank made
it clear
that he viewed the losses and billions in bailouts for the GSEs as just
a cost
of doing the business of government and affecting desired outcomes much
like
any other social program or entitlement. Dropping all pretense that the
GSEs
were private or independent agencies Frank said, “Remember now that
Fannie and
Freddie have been converted…part of the losses of Fannie and Freddie
are that
since the housing collapse, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…have become a
kind of
public utility.”
Unlike
Obama, Barney Frank is at least
right up front with his politics, and doesn’t even pretend that Fannie
and
Freddie are – or ever should have been – anything other than a tentacle
of the
ever expanding federal government octopus. “They’re not what they used
to be –
that inappropriately hybrid, private stock company, public policy
instrument,”
Frank said during that same CNBC interview.
There
is much to consider in that
statement and a good deal to learn. For decades, politicians have been
using
the tax code, regulation, and intimidation to force private
institutions to
implement public policy. Frank and his liberal colleagues like Obama
obviously
would prefer to drop the masquerade that a bright line still exists
between
public and private, and in the last three years they have relentlessly
moved in
the direction of more government control over the remains of the
private
sector, and in some cases and outright takeover of private sector
functions.
Less
than a decade ago, Fannie and
Freddie either made or guaranteed about 40% of the mortgage loans in
the
nation. Today, the two GSEs control 95% of the market. As recently as
2006, the
private sector provided $2 for home mortgages or other consumer credit
for
every $1 provided by the government. Today, that 2:1 advantage has
disappeared
and the government now provides or guarantees more consumer credit
(about $6.5
trillion) than the entire private market sources combined. As
previously mentioned,
Dodd-Frank gives the government unprecedented regulatory control over
the
remaining private sector banks.
The
government is in the car business
having bailed out and taken ownership positions in both General Motors
and
Chrysler. If ObamaCare is implemented as currently planned, the
government will
have unprecedented control over the health care industry; 16% of the
entire
economy. With choking regulation from the EPA and Interior Department,
the
Administration has limited production of proven traditional energy
resources
while squandering billions on risky green energy adventures like
Solyndra.
In
all of these cases and more, the
government is taking increasing control over a once private industry to
accomplish a public policy objective; something even Barney Frank
acknowledged
as an “inappropriate hybrid.” Unless the course is reversed – something
with
which Congress has a disastrous track record of accomplishment – the
outcome
will be the same as for Fannie and Freddie. As Frank might say, all of
these
intrusions by the government into the private sector would result in
the
creation of still more “public policy instruments” of the federal
government.
Read
this column with links, and
others, at Townhall Finance
|