LPS Desktop



Opt-In
Sign-up for our free news headlines newsletter

Person of the Week

E-Feature Archive
Person of the Week
Follow @MortgageOrb

Do You Hear What I Hear?
in From The Orb > Blog View
by Phil Hall on Monday 17 May 2010
print the content item Follow MortgageOrb On Twitter
comments: 3
BLOG VIEW: In the past month, a new chorus has begun to take shape, and its loud voices are singing a fatalistic tune: the elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Is that position too extreme? Perhaps, but neither government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) is doing much to justify its continued existence. The recent first-quarter data is particularly disastrous: Fannie Mae reported a net loss of $11.5 billion during the first quarter while Freddie Mac lost $6.7 billion in the same period. The GSEs' regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, is asking the Department of the Treasury for more money to prop them up: $8.4 billion for Fannie Mae and $10.6 billion for Freddie Mac.

The administration, which initially promised to address the GSE question earlier this year, abruptly backpedaled last February and decided to put the matter on the proverbial back burner until next year. The Republican leadership in the Senate, however, does not want to wait that long, and it recently put forth the GSE Bailout Elimination and Taxpayer Protection Amendment as part of the financial regulatory reform legislation that is currently being debated.

The Republican amendment set clear-cut deadlines: ending the GSEs’ conservatorship in two years, which then leads to a three-year period for the GSEs to function under new operating restrictions worked into their government charters. After three years, their charters expire, and they have 10 years to form a separate holding corporation and a dissolution trust fund for whatever remaining mortgages or debt obligations they are still holding.

It was something resembling a solution, but the partisan rancor in Congress doomed it to rejection in a full Senate vote. However, there are other voices beyond Washington that want GSE to go even further and deeper - they want to see the GSEs shut down now, not in the next decade or beyond.

In his speech before his bank's annual shareholders meeting in April, Robert G. Wilmers, chairman and CEO of M&T Bank Corp., argued against having the GSEs. To drive his point home, he noted how a neighboring country got along quite well without GSEs.

"Canada doesn't have the equivalent of Fannie and Freddie," said Wilmers. "Nor does it permit the deduction of mortgage interest from an individual's taxes. Nevertheless, its home ownership rate is 68%. Canadian banks have weathered the financial crisis particularly well and required no government bailouts."

Arthur D. Warga, dean of the C.T. Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston, also cited a parallel example in a May 1 editorial in the Houston Chronicle. "The Obama administration has already started moving in the right direction by eliminating private intermediaries in the student-loan business," he wrote. "The result will be savings that will help pay for more loans for college students. As the administration and Congress consider the future of mortgage finance, my advice to them is clear and loud: Eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

Matt Koppenheffer, a columnist with the influential Motley Fool website, was even more blunt. "Let's go ahead and put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of their misery," he wrote. "Unfortunately, this can't happen particularly quickly because of their size and entrenchment in the system, but setting a timetable of a decade or so to defuse these financial nukes seems like it would be a big positive."

Can we expect to see Fannie and Freddie on a list of extinct agencies? It seems doubtful, at least in the current political climate. Even Wilmers acknowledged that by stating, "The mortgage market has come to be structured around Fannie and Freddie, and powerful interests are allied with the status quo," he said.

But waiting until 2011 to address this subject is a major mistake. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader in the Senate, said it best: "In my view, it’s simply not acceptable for some on the other side to suggest that we have to rush [the regulatory reform] bill through Congress, but that it’s okay to wait another year to address the GSEs, which we all know played a central role in the financial crisis."

Doing nothing about GSE reform is unacceptable. But unless there is an intelligent counter-proposal on the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, there will be more voices calling for their elimination.

- Phil Hall, editor, Secondary Marketing Executive

(Please address all comments regarding this opinion column to hallp@sme-online.com.)
Comments
Tim Cornelison
18 May : 09:25
Reply to this
What I hear is a lot of BS. Using Canada's system as a model is absurd. Canada has a population of 3 million less peopole than the State of California. We have more illegal aliens in the United States than Canada has renters.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not cause this crisis. The agencies are currently in need of bailout funds because they like FHA have been used as instruments to bail out millions of unqualified homeowners who were in many cases, particularly in the early stages of this financial catastrophe, direct customers of the only financial mechanism available as an alternative which is Wall Street.

Sub-prime, ALT-A, Option ARM's, NO-DOC, Stated Income, NINA were not creations of the GSE's. In fact they were late comers to those markets and in the case of Option ARM's never players at all. I am no fan of the government sponsored entities but to try and place the blame for this crisis at their feet is about as appropriate as comparing us to Canada, a nation of roughly 3.5 times the population of my home state of Georgia.

A couple of Observations for you
Influential - Motley Fool?
Would Dean Warga have us sell our mortgages directly to the government?
Someone should tell CEO Wilmers about the CMHC which insures more than 1/3 of all Canadian mortgages but the difference is it is directly owned by the Government of Canada.

Anonymous
20 May : 16:47
Reply to this
The GSEs may have been latecomers but to have bought back $200BB in delinquent loans, they sure wasted little time in losing their investors' money.
Anonymous
23 May : 16:42
Reply to this
The GSE model worked fine until they were privatized. IMO this is a perfect example of why letting private markets work without oversights does not work.

It was not the securitization component which caused the agencies problems but 1) the portfolio of non-standard GSE loans in their investment portfolio and 2) the more recent loans they were required to make in order to bailout failed homeowners.

The standard/conforming GSE FRM and ARM loans underwriten to GSE criteria perform relatively well.

They did in fact purchase Option ARM loans going back as far as the late 1990's.
Submit comment
Subject
Username:
Comment:

Interthinx
IMN
Safeguard Properties
RSVP

Copyright © 2000-2010 Zackin Publications Inc. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy