Truthout Original

Facebook DIGG

The Fannie/Freddie Flat Earth Theory

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Fannie Mae CEO Herbert Allison Jr. and Freddie Mac CEO David Moffett chat during a break from their testimony before the House Financial Services Committee in late September. While Fannie and Freddie are not devoid of blame, they should not be scapegoated for the entire financial crisis, according to economist Dean Baker. (Photo: Kevin Wolf / AP)

    For the last month, most of the world has been watching the Wall Street gang drowning in their own greed as they threaten to pull the rest of us down with them. However, while we have been distracted, the Flat Earth Society has developed its narrative to explain the crisis.

    In the Flat Earth version, the real villains in the story were the public/private mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Prominent Congressional Democrats like Senators Charles Schumer and Chris Dodd, and Representative Barney Frank, are cited as accomplices. According to the Flat-Earthers, the problem wasn't sleaze bag bankers pulling down tens of millions a year pushing predatory loans to people who didn't understand them; the real problem was Congressional Democrats, who wanted the government to help the poor and minorities buy homes.

    Before addressing the Flat Earth argument, I should be very clear that I have long been a harsh critic of Fannie and Freddie. They committed a colossal mistake by failing to recognize the housing bubble. It is understandable that you could miss an $8 trillion housing bubble if you drive a bus or sell shoes for a living. It's a little harder to accept this sort of mistake from companies that own or guarantee trillions of dollars of mortgage debt.

    I first warned that the collapse of the housing bubble would lead to serious problems for Fannie and Freddie in the fall of 2002 , before they began to move into the risky mortgages that were the immediate cause of their collapse. When almost all you own is mortgage debt, and the mortgage default rate rises to several times its normal level, it is virtually guaranteed that you're going to face serious problems. Obviously, Fannie and Freddie's venture into more risky mortgages in the years 2005 to 2007 worsened the problem.

    While no one should shed any tears over the collapse of these two giants - the top management and shareholders got what they deserved - it is equally ridiculous to lay the blame for the financial crisis on the shoulders of Fannie and Freddie.

    The underlying problem was the housing bubble, which Alan Greenspan allowed to grow unchecked and, arguably, actively promoted. The bubble was accentuated by the willingness of banks to ignore normal prudential standards in issuing mortgages and to make loans that they knew could not be paid off by the borrowers. And, of course, leveraging themselves to the sky guaranteed full-fledged disaster

    Banks would issue these loans because they knew they could dump them into the secondary market where securitizers would peddle them off to suckers all round the world. This is where Fannie and Freddie came in. They purchased many of the junk mortgages issued by banks in the years 2005 to 2007. According to the Flat-Earthers, this makes Fannie and Freddie the cause of the current crisis.

    There is one basic problem with the Flat Earth story: Fannie and Freddie jumped into the junk mortgage market because they were trying to keep pace with the private issuers of mortgage-backed securities. Fannie and Freddie made a conscious decision to dive into the junk in order to protect their market share, which was being seriously eroded by the aggressive tactics of private giants like Citigroup and Merrill Lynch.

    The market share of Fannie and Freddie. in the years 2004 to 2007, never came close to its level before the junk market took off. According to data from the Federal Reserve Board, Fannie and Freddie securitized $315.2 billion worth of mortgages in 2002, accounting for 50.1 percent of the new mortgage debt that year. In 2006, they securitized $276.0 billion in mortgages, giving them a market share of just 34.8 percent.

    Fannie and Freddie's conduct was despicable. Their decision to dive into the junk certainly contributed to the further expansion of the bubble and worsened the pain from its eventual collapse. However, they were followers, not leaders. They didn't cause the bubble and the subprime craziness. This train had already left the station. Fannie and Freddie's crime was going along for the ride.

    Fannie and Freddie could have instead played a positive role in this crisis. Suppose in 2004 or 2005 one of these mortgage giants issued a statement warning of the dangerous over-valuation in many housing markets across the country. Instead of easing mortgage standards, imagine that Fannie or Freddie announced that it was tightening its rules for mortgages in the most over-valued markets, requiring nonborrowed down payments of 20 percent, or even 30 percent, in order to protect against anticipated price declines.

    This action would have produced howls of outrage from builders, realtors, and other big beneficiaries of the housing bubble. It also would have led to headlines and possibly some serious analysis of the evidence for a housing bubble. It may have saved the country from much of the pain it is now suffering.

    But this sort of step would have required real courage and leadership, traits rarely found in high positions in Washington, or on Wall Street. Fannie and Freddie should be blamed for following the herd off the cliff. They stand out as especially big sheep. But only the Flat-Earthers could make them the main villains in this story.

»


Dean Baker is the Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. CEPR's Jobs Byte is published each month upon release of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' employment report.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

So Fannie and Freddie do

So Fannie and Freddie do care about the the price of tea? This article needs to be more to the point. Those two certainly helped fuel it along with the other players you mentioned. Congress' easy housing initiative may have helped it along but it was really their loyalty to the governing Federal Reserve that allowed this mess to boil over. Either congress is full of idiots or they are conspiring against the American people. The only member among their ranks that I have heard one iota of logic concerning this debacle from, past or present, is Ron Paul.

Johnson "privatized" Fannie

Johnson "privatized" Fannie in '68. Reagan deregulated with a blowtorch, and we got the S & L "crisis". Housing prices were going up at 20-30% PER YEAR under Bush, and following Gramm's execution of regulation in a "veto proof" bill in 99 the fan was so full, it couldn't even move the blades any more. Now that Republican ADMINISTRATIONS have done in the pooch, the blame is pointed at Democrats in a legislative branch they never really controlled, though holding a "technical" bare majority. It wasn't enough for the "flat earthers". They dug a money pit and threw everyone in. But they DID walk off with the profits.

DB is missing the point -

DB is missing the point - the "flat earthers" aren't blaming Fannie and Freddie, they're blaming those lazy, greedy poor people, especially "minorities," who were demanding (according to the National Review and the WSJ and their ilk,) they be allowed to "buy" homes they couldn't afford. The F+F "blame" is just cover for the attempts by the bank robbers and their enablers to shift all blame for the country's woes on said poor and minorities, in the hopes no one will notice how many jets and yachts they got parked out back.

"So Fannie and Freddie do

"So Fannie and Freddie do care . . ." The writer has said something fair and square in hiserher comment that I would like to paraphrase: Congress is full of idiots and they are conspiring against the American people. Period. I have believed this for quite a while but could never find a fellow believer. The current spectacle of the stock market reactions to the scam bailout merely confirms that there is no concern whatever as to the underlying causes of the crash but only signals opportunities for further greed, idiocy and conspiracy. Socialism for th4e Rich.

Republican MO: cause all the

Republican MO: cause all the problems in the world, blame them on poor black people. Katrina, hello?

Don't blame CRA either.

Don't blame CRA either. Deregulation is the cause and affect of this financial & foreclosure crsis!! If CRA was used, this would not have happened! If Greenspan would have ensured that these loans followed regulatory compliance of consumer protection and CRA, the banks would not be allowed to purchase these junk loans. If there is not a market for them, then no one would buy them. Come on, wake up, advocates have worked with Dodd, Franks and Greenspan alerting them of the possibility of financial disaster since 1999. We dont need more regulations, we need to enforce and strengthen the ones on the books, let the regulators do their job and thank them when they do take the heat for doing their job. CRA ensures that bank depositors have access to credit and services offered by the banks. This is a sign of reverse redlining my friends.

Not quite--the Flat Earth

Not quite--the Flat Earth explanation is that the Clinton administration (and Democrats in general) FORCED Fannie and Freddie to lend to uncreditworthy poor and minority borrowers. Everything is Bill Clinton's fault. In fact, if you push their arguments to the illogical limit, since George Bush does not and never has existed, Bill Clinton's ghost still occupies the White House in some strange arrangement with Laura which no one wants to talk about.

It all comes down to greed.

It all comes down to greed. A little bit is good but too much has explosive potentials! Everybody wanted to increase homeownership and rising asset prices stimulated consumption. So everybody, the entire society, from politicians to bankers, and consumers, was in the same boat. Everybody profited!!! The main culprits are Fanny and Freddy with their government guaranty and AAA rating. Without them buying and guarantying even the worst kind of mortgages the bubble would have never gone this far. But can you imagine the person who would have dared to rock the boat? They would have hanged, drawn, and quartered the poor slap!!! Fanny and Freddy set a bad example for AIG and the pack of credit default swap underwriters. Everybody was competing for market share by taking on more and more risk. Then there was the believe in the Greenspan put who was always there when things went wrong. Greenspan also facilitated the believe in a new risk model where risk magically disappears when it is as broadly as possible distributed and hedged with derivatives. Home buyers believed that house prices would rise for ever without realizing that they would have to find a bigger fool to pay a higher price. Since they got a mortgage of up to 120% of exaggerated value or purchasing prices and the mortgage was only secured by the underlying property (non recourse mortgage) they carried no risk at all. Imagine the creator of the risk (home buyer) having no risk at all. This sentence needs to be repeated and memorized over and over again. It created the biggest casino in human history. I play, I win. If I should loose I have wagered noting and YOU/WE ALL loose. Everybody wants to play this game and the casino doors swung wide open. Since nobody looses MORAL HAZARD was rampant. Both moral hazard and wrong believes (like in a new risk model) create SYSTEMIC RISK individually. Combined, SYSTEMIC RISK increased exponentially and at one point chaos (theory) took hold. The system was stretched to the limit and had to crumble. Policymakers, Bush, waited far too long to significantly address the problem. This rescue done 9 months ago would have avoided most of the mess (but would have paradoxically increased moral hazard and systemic risk). The only thing that helps now is to push massive amounts of new money into the system and that's exactly what they are doing. It is inflation per definition and down the road it will show up in higher prices somewhere. This somewhere is the place to invest now. This panic will be over soon!!!

Does the public have such a

Does the public have such a short memory? Particularly red heads? Bush was promoting Fannie and Freddie and homes for risky lenders like crazy! Check out: http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/presremarks.cfm Excerpt from REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON HOMEOWNERSHIP at the Department of Housing and Urban Development Washington, D.C. June 18, 2002, 10:30 A.M. ED --------------------- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021015-7.html President Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership George Washington University Washington, D.C.

The housing bubble was a

The housing bubble was a result of inflation, hence the analogy. Money, or credit, was created out of nothing by the kiting schemes of the venerable investment institutions. When the bubble burst a huge pile of dollars evaporated like the morning mist and the dollar began to get stronger, e.g. it can now buy more euros than it could before and the price of oil has dropped precipitously, even in the face of the completely unhinged Dow-Jones. Take a look at gold too. It has dropped significantly which, in other words, is a rise in the value of the dollar. The bailout efforts will only work if the hole in the bottom of the boat gets fixed. To use the bubble analogy, the great kiting can only begin again if the conditions (surface of the bubble) can be repaired. Doing away with the Glass- Steagall Act in 1999 was the venerable Phil Gramm's (and others) contribution to creating the conditions for the inflation of the bubble. Fannie and Freddy, now being privatized, had to follow the lemmings because their only guide was profit, and short-term at that. If Fannie and Freddie were under control of the government, the criterion would, hopefully, change. A truly democratic republic would have as its goal the welfare of the citizens and would have acted like a bulwark against the tide of greed-driven inflation. As soon as the prices of commodities are determined by consumers who will actually use those commodities, things will stabilize. When the price of a barrel of oil drops by half overnight, you can be sure it isn't because lots of people bought Priuses the day before. It's the speculators in the investment market whose actions cause inflation.

We're going to the polls

We're going to the polls soon. Let's inform ourselves as to who deserves to stay, if we don't care enough or don't have the time to inform ourselves, let's get rid of the whole bunch. If nothing else that may get their attention.

Lots of guilty parties,

Lots of guilty parties, plenty of blame to spread around. Core problem as Greenspan pointed out was 'we are privatizing profits but socializing losses'. CONgress promising to double the regulatory guard of the tax payers hen house does not make this chicken feel any safer. In true capitalism there is risk - not only can one make profits, they can also loose their shirts - as should of happened across the inflated housing market , but the national bilkout is robbing the responsible to reward the illresponsible from the bottom to the top.

It was sometime about 1999

It was sometime about 1999 or 2000 that we had our brokerage account with Citi Bank(Solomon Smith Barney) that our money market funds were sweeped into a ND bank over our objections. Citi Bank had just bought the ND bank with the explicit intent of getting into sub-prime lending. We left Citi Bank in 2001 because of their *.com and Enron promotion tactics among their other less than ethical practices. We had huge problems with Citi Bank and I would like to see them investigated aggressively. I personally think they got away with grand larceny last time.

New York Times, September

New York Times, September 30, 1999: "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending", by Steven A. Holmes. "In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing credit requirement on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. ... Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people ... In addition, banks, thrifts institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help then make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. ... 'Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. 'Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rate in the so-called subprime market.' ... Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 percent of loans in the conventional loan market." The NY Times must be a tool of those bloodsucking Republicans to print these damnable lies. We all know that the Clinton Administration, Congressional Democrats, and the M&M's (Mae & Mac) are wholly innocent respecting the housing bubble and credit crisis.

It is wrong to blame

It is wrong to blame government deregulation policies for causing the recession when the government was responsible for making the laws that regulated the lending policies of the banking industry. They permitted banks to lend without a credit check or down payment on mortgages, and stood idly by as predatory lenders reaped a harvest. This was not letting free market forces rule but only giving special interests the freedom to rip off potential home owners.

The problem with the cause

The problem with the cause and effect of the crisis was in fact law. The CRA, the Banking Act, and many other laws created unrealistic housing subsidies passed on through government banks Fannie, Freddie, the state funded banks, 12 federal home loan banks and the rest of the government owned enterprise. While the acceptances of tier one debt forced upon the banks unrealistic asset quality which pushed them into failure. We all know the collateral that the banks hold are bonds, but do we all know that fannie, freddie, federal home loan bonds, and other gse debt is given priority at the secondary window. The debt given priority brought down the banks and yes it was the government who created the laws which forced the banks to purchase junk assets.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.