Last Updated on Thursday, 14 January 2010 15:02 Written by JB - Factoid Editor Wednesday, 06 January 2010 12:21
On Christmas eve, when most Americans’ minds were on other things, the Treasure Dept. announced that it was removing the $400 billion cap from what the administration believes will be necessary to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac solvent. This action confirms that the decade-long congressional failure to more closely regulate these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSE’s) will rank for U. S. taxpayers as one of the worst policy disasters in our history.
Fannie and Freddie’s congressional sponsors – some of whom are now leading the administrations’s efforts to “reform” the financial system – have a lot to answer for. Rep. Barney Frank, chmn. Of the House Financial Services Committee, sponsored legislation, adopted in 2008 that establishes a new regulatory structure for the GSE’s. But by then it was too late. The GSE’s had begun buying risky loans in 1993 to meet the “affordable housing” requirements established under Congressional direction by the (Clinton) Dept. of Housing and Urban Development.
Most of the damage was done from 2005 through 2007, when Fannie and Freddie were binging on risky mortgages. Back then, Mr. Frank was the bartender, denying that there was any cause for concern, and claiming that he wanted to “roll the dice” on subsidized housing support.
By the end of 2008, Fannie and Freddie held or guaranteed approximately 10 million sub-prime loans. These are now defaulting at unprecedented rates, accounting for both their 2008 insolvency and their growing losses today. Since 2008, under government control, the two agencies have continued to buy dicey mortgages in order to stabilize housing prices.
Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae has found that from the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented them reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly sub-prime.
Why Fannie and Freddie did this is still to be determined. But the leading candidate is certainly HUD’s affordable housing regulations, which by 2007 required that 55% of all the loans the agencies acquired had to be made to borrowers at or below the median income, with almost half of these required to be low-income borrowers.
Another likely reason for Fannie and Freddie’s mislabeling of mortgages was their desire to retain congressional support by “rolling the dice” while making believe they weren’t betting.
Source: Peter J. Wallison, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in the Wall St. Journal, 12/30/09.
If you would like to comment on this Factoid article, please login or create an account.
| Mackinac Center Commentaries |
| Mackinac Center for Public Policy - Commentaries |
|
| Factsheets - The Heritage Foundation |
| Factsheets - The Heritage Foundation |
|
| Library of Congress: News |
| The latest news from the Library of Congress. |
|