The Tea Party Is Right About Fannie and Freddie

No, the mortgage giants weren’t the only reason for the crisis, but their loan guarantees create a moral-hazard problem that encourages risk-taking.

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 09: Fannie Mae's headquarters in the nation's capital are seen November 9, 2011 in Washington, DC. Citing the rise in defaults on loans it has guranteed, the government-controlled mortgage giant is asking the federal government for $7.8 billion in aid to covers its losses in the in the third quarter of FY 2011. Fannie has received $112.6 billion so far from the Treasury Department - the most expensive bailout of a single company. 
Getty Images
Matthew Cooper
Add to Briefcase
Matthew Cooper
Nov. 7, 2013, 4 p.m.

It’s been five years since Fan­nie Mae and Fred­die Mac went un­der dur­ing the fin­an­cial crisis. Since then, the mort­gage gi­ants have been in con­ser­vat­or­ship. Con­gress is still pon­der­ing what to do. Every­one’s pretty much agreed that the two should go. (For the re­cord, neither lends money to homeown­ers dir­ectly; they buy mort­gages and turn them in­to fin­an­cial in­stru­ments that can be traded — thus pump­ing more money in­to the hous­ing-fin­ance mar­ket.) The ques­tion is, what should re­place Fan­nie and Fred­die? And it’s there that the House con­ser­vat­ives ad­mired by the tea party have offered an in­triguing solu­tion, al­beit one that’s gal­van­ized many oth­er Re­pub­lic­ans and busi­ness in­terests in op­pos­i­tion.

The plan, pro­posed back in 2011 by Jeb Hensarling, the chair­man of the House Fin­an­cial Ser­vices Com­mit­tee, would ab­ol­ish Fred­die and Fan­nie; but the big thing his pro­pos­al would do is elim­in­ate any guar­an­tee that the gov­ern­ment would bail out a new en­tity. The bill would cre­ate a plat­form for in­vestors to se­cur­it­ize mort­gages — kind of like the old Fan­nie — but there’d be no fall­back res­cue plan. Hensarling says this would end “the boom, bust, and bail­out cycle,” be­cause in­vestors would take few­er chances with their money; that cau­tion would re­move the fuel that triggered the flood of hous­ing fin­ance that, in turn, en­cour­aged people to glee­fully buy what they couldn’t af­ford — cre­at­ing the price bubbles and de­faults that led to the fin­an­cial crisis. What’s more, Hensarling’s plan would rule out a huge price tag like the $180 bil­lion to bail out Fred­die and Fan­nie.

Over in the Sen­ate, Mark Warner and Bob Cork­er see it dif­fer­ently. The Vir­gin­ia Demo­crat and the Ten­ness­ee Re­pub­lic­an are known for seek­ing com­mon ground in a di­vided cham­ber. To­geth­er, they have been work­ing for more than a year on their own plan for ab­ol­ish­ing Fan­nie and Fred­die and re­pla­cing the two en­tit­ies with a mort­gage mar­ket that re­quires large amounts of private cap­it­al to ob­tain a gov­ern­ment guar­an­tee. In oth­er words, the in­dustry would be put­ting up its own kind of in­sur­ance in case things go wrong, akin to the way plain-old banks pony up in­sur­ance money to pro­tect cus­tom­ers’ de­pos­its. But if a cata­stroph­ic eco­nom­ic event oc­curs, the gov­ern­ment then would provide a guar­an­tee for in­vestors. The pres­id­ent has praised the Cork­er-Warner ap­proach, and his ad­min­is­tra­tion had provided con­sid­er­able tech­nic­al as­sist­ance. “We’ve been on the phone with them a lot,” Cork­er says.

Both sen­at­ors say the guar­an­tee is es­sen­tial to pre­serving the 30-year mort­gage. Without a gov­ern­ment back­stop, they ar­gue, in­vestors will not fin­ance a risky en­deavor such as the stand­ard mort­gage loan — which may ap­pear vanilla to homeown­ers but to in­vestors rep­res­ents con­sid­er­able risk be­cause in­terest rates fluc­tu­ate wildly over the gen­er­a­tion-long term of the loan. “If you don’t have this [guar­an­tee],” Warner says, “there would be dra­mat­ic­ally high­er in­terest rates, no 30-year mort­gage, and you would see a dra­mat­ic­ally dif­fer­ent hous­ing mar­ket.”

The myri­ad groups in­volved in hous­ing over­whelm­ingly back the idea of keep­ing a guar­an­tee. “We’re act­ively and ag­gress­ively op­pos­ing [the House bill],” says Jam­ie Gregory of the Na­tion­al As­so­ci­ation of Re­altors. The hous­ing phalanx in Wash­ing­ton is a for­mid­able one, in­volving lob­bies from fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions to build­ers to com­munity act­iv­ists who want more af­ford­able hous­ing. “Every­body in the in­dustry be­lieves that [Fan­nie and Fred­die] re­form needs to take place … but the com­plete elim­in­a­tion of the gov­ern­ment guar­an­tee is not vi­able,” says Dav­id Stevens, pres­id­ent and CEO of the Mort­gage Bankers As­so­ci­ation.

While those con­cerns are le­git­im­ate, elim­in­at­ing the gov­ern­ment back­stop may be less risky than it seems. Here’s the case for get­ting rid of the guar­an­tee. The first reas­on is that it cre­ated a mor­al haz­ard, en­cour­aging in­vestors in mort­gage-backed products to be reck­less, be­cause they knew they could be bailed out. That ir­re­spons­ible spend­ing on the hous­ing side made it ri­dicu­lously easy to get a loan, thereby send­ing de­mand and prices up, cre­at­ing the famed bubble. It’s a stretch to say Fan­nie Mae alone caused the fin­an­cial crisis; many oth­er act­ors played a part. But there’s no ques­tion that the guar­an­tees are a big prob­lem, and it’s fair to ask if the more sens­ible guar­an­tees in Cork­er-Warner would still en­cour­age bubbles.

There’s an­oth­er reas­on for get­ting rid of the guar­an­tee: evid­ence of enough money float­ing around the sys­tem to keep the 30-year mort­gage alive and well, des­pite the hous­ing lobby’s fears. Look at the mar­ket for “jumbo” mort­gages, those loans too large to have had a guar­an­tee un­der Fan­nie. They have his­tor­ic­ally done well. Who’s to say fund­ing can’t be found for less valu­able 30-year mort­gages? “From what I know about cap­it­al­ism,” Hensarling says, “if some­body de­mands a product, they’ll get it.” Those in the Hous­ing In­dus­tri­al Com­plex want the guar­an­tee, des­pite its prob­lems in the past, be­cause they fear what would hap­pen to in­terest rates and avail­ab­il­ity of cap­it­al. Fair enough. If the crit­ics are right and the money does dry up for the hous­ing mar­ket, Con­gress can al­ways turn back to some kind of guar­an­tee. But first, let’s see if the mar­ket works.

Warner and Cork­er would like to get their bill mov­ing to the Sen­ate floor this year. “I am ac­tu­ally op­tim­ist­ic,” Warner says. And, in­deed, his bill has bi­par­tis­an co­spon­sors and is likely to be­come the basis for a Sen­ate Bank­ing Com­mit­tee bill. For his part, Hensarling will have to sell the idea to a House Re­pub­lic­an Con­fer­ence that will be un­der pres­sure to block it un­less he backs down on guar­an­tees. That would be an un­for­tu­nate re­treat. The guar­an­tees didn’t cause the fin­an­cial crisis, but they made it worse. In­dustry and the mar­kets cling to them. And that may be ex­actly the reas­on to be done with them.

What We're Following See More »
TURNING OVER 3,000 RUSSIAN ADS
Facebook to Cooperate with Congress
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
CALLS HIM A “FRIEND OF MINE”
Trump Praises Erdogan
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS
INFORMS CONGRESS RE: EXECUTIVE ORDER
Trump Makes Good on Promise of New North Korea Sanctions
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

President Trump this afternoon announced another round of sanctions on North Korea, calling the regime "a continuing threat." The executive order, which Trump relayed to Congress, bans any ship or plane that has visited North Korea from visiting the United States within 180 days. The order also authorizes sanctions on any financial institution doing business with North Korea, and permits the secretaries of State and the Treasury to sanction any person involved in trading with North Korea, operating a port there, or involved in a variety of industries there.

SUED FOR SIMILAR DESIGN
Ivanka to Court Over $785 Sandals
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS
DOESN’T KNOW WHEN
Trump Says He’ll Visit Puerto Rico
10 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Seated next to Ukrainian President Poroshenko on his final day of meetings at the United Nations, Trump did not say when he might go to Puerto Rico, but spoke solemnly about the destruction to an island he said had been 'absolutely obliterated.'”

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login