The GOP's Fannie/Freddie Fixation

| Tue Dec. 9, 2008 3:05 PM PST

aig-lehman-fannie-freddie-gravestones-300x225.jpg

Congressional Republicans finally got their big chance to blame the financial crisis on the Democrats. Ever since the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform began investigating the causes of the nation's current economic troubles in early October, the panel's Republican members have been agitating for a hearing on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They charged that their Democratic colleagues failed to rein in the two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), which were placed in receivership in September, frequently noting that Democrats had accepted significant campaign contributions from the companies. (Republican members of the committee also took in their fair share.) Many GOPers blame the financial crisis on the extension of mortgages to poor people and minorities who couldn't afford them, which they say was facilitated by lax oversight of Fannie and Freddie. On Tuesday, with the presidential election safely over, committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) gave the GOP members their hearing.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Blaming Fannie and Freddie for America's economic troubles has been a key GOP talking point. During his run for the Presidency, John McCain said the GSE's were "the catalysts, the match that started this forest fire." At Tuesday's hearing, Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) was eagerly promoted this narrative. During his questioning of the four former Fannie and Freddie CEO's who had been called to testify, Mica said committee Democrats "tried to lead the public" to believe the financial mess "is Wall Street's fault." Objecting to this interpretation, Mica offered a "different take on this." He went on to quote from an editorial in the sometimes comically right-wing Investor's Business Daily:

Fannie and Freddie, the main vehicle for Clinton's multicultural housing policy, drove the explosion of the subprime housing market by buying up literally hundreds of billions of dollars in substandard loans—funding loans that ordinarily wouldn't have been made based on such time-honored notions as putting money down, having sufficient income, and maintaining a payment record indicating creditworthiness...This created the problem we are having today.

But there's a problem with Mica's (and IBD's) explanation. The "multicultural housing policy" the editorial refers to is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which encouraged the extension of credit to poor people and minorities. Conservatives—like the writers of the IBD editorial—say the CRA "led to a reckless surge in mortgage lending that has pushed our financial system to the brink of chaos." But the vast majority of subprime loans were made by institutions that were not subject to the CRA, and studies have shown that the act has actually increased the amount of responsible lending to poor families. The comptroller of the currency, conservative economist and Fed governor Randall Kroszner, as well as Fed chair Ben Bernanke, have all said the CRA is definitively not to blame for the current crisis.

But just because the CRA and its poor and minority beneficiaries didn't cause the meltdown doesn't mean Fannie and Freddie don't share part of the blame. Wall Street created the secondary mortgage market, packaging, repackaging, and reselling mortgages and parts of mortgages. So in June 2005, as securities backed by subprime loans became an increasingly large percentage of the mortgage market, Fannie and Freddie executives were faced with a choice. They could stick with the secure, fixed rate mortgages that they were chartered to hold. Or they could move into the subprime market, where, as one confidential presentation to Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd put it, the real "revenue opportunity" was. In the presentation, Mudd was told his corporation could "stay the course" or "meet the market where the market is." Mudd and then-Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron ignored warnings from risk managers in their own companies and moved into subprime. And, instead of staying the course, they drove their companies off a cliff.

Despite the fact that the companies had to be rescued, the Fannie and Freddie CEOs defended their disastrous decision to expose their companies to the subprime market, claiming they had to "follow the market" when banks and other investors moved increasingly to subprime. "Fannie Mae did not cause the current crisis," said Franklin Raines, who was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1999 to 2004. "If anything, Fannie Mae played catch-up to the banks and investment banks who drove the securitization of the most toxic subprime mortgages." Raines' defense was typical of all four CEOs, and Waxman echoed it. "It is a myth to say they were the originators of the subprime crisis," he said. "Fundamentally, they were following the market, not leading it."

Following instead of leading, however, does not absolve the companies or their CEOs of responsibility for their actions. Both companies were warned by their risk officers that buying "no income, no assets" or NINA loans and other subprime products was irresponsible and foolhardy. Freddie Mac fired its chief risk officer. Fannie Mae simply ignored its risk officer. Instead of heeding the warning, both companies continued to invest in subprime loans, and documents released at the hearing show that as late as 2007 Fannie Mae executives were talking about wanting to go "down the credit spectrum." By increasing the demand for products that turned out to be fundamentally worthless, Fannie and Freddie made the problem worse, and now, as Waxman emphasized, "their irresponsible decisions are...costing the taxpayers billions of dollars."

Congress certainly deserves some of the blame, too, as Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), soon to be the committee's ranking Republican, pointed out. "We have to recognize that what we've done with the GSE's hasn't worked," Issa said. "We in the Congress have to look in the mirror, because part of the blame is on our doorstep." But perhaps it's not as simple as assigning blame to any one group or entity. There's plenty of blame to go around. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), emphasized that point when he read part of a Thomas Friedman column from late November:

So many people were in on it: People who had no business buying a home, with nothing down and nothing to pay for two years; people who had no business pushing such mortgages, but made fortunes doing so; people who had no business bundling those loans into securities and selling them to third parties, as if they were AAA bonds, but made fortunes doing so; people who had no business rating those loans as AAA, but made fortunes doing so; and people who had no business buying those bonds and putting them on their balance sheets so they could earn a little better yield, but made fortunes doing so.

Sure, Fannie and Freddie had no business buying up subprime mortgages so that they could take advantage of a "revenue opportunity." But a lot of other people didn't have any business doing what they were doing: the hedge funds that went for so long without regulation, the federal regulators who turned a blind eye, the credit rating agencies who got paid to say crap was gold, the companies like AIG that took obscene risks on complicated credit instruments, the investment banks like Lehman Brothers that facilitated all the irresponsible transactions. Since October, they've all been called before the House oversight committee to be held to account. Just like the Fannie and Freddie CEOs who testified today, they all said, "it's not my fault. No one could have seen this coming." Mark Souder, a Republican from Indiana, summarized the problems with holding hearings on the financial crisis best. "Nobody takes responsibility for anything," he said. "It gets very frustrating to figure out what to do next if nobody's responsible for anything."

Photo from flickr user scurzuzu used under a Creative Commons license.

Nick Baumann covers national politics for Mother Jones' DC Bureau. For more of his stories, click here. He can also be found on twitter.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

Ben Bernake suggest help for mortgage holders

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

Ben S. Bernake, chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned on Thursday that the soaring number of foreclosures threatened the economy. He then proposed some ideas ? government-engineered loan modifications, and more taxpayer money to help people refinance.

At the Treasury Department, meanwhile, top officials continued to work on a plan to bolster the housing market by subsidizing 30-year home mortgages with rates as low as 4.5 percent ? a level that home buyers have not seen since the early 1960s.

Since the financial crisis began last summer, both the Fed and the Treasury had focused almost exclusively on patching up the financial system ? propping up banks, Wall Street firms, money market funds and issuers of commercial debt.

The new focus on helping individuals could create a bitter split between those want to buy homes and those who have homes.

The cheap mortgages would be available only for people buying houses, not the roughly 50 million families that already have mortgages and would want to refinance at a lower rate. As a result, the plan offers no direct relief to the millions of people who face foreclosure because they took out exotic mortgages that they could not afford. Nor would the plan offer any benefit to people who have stayed current on their mortgages and would simply be interested in taking advantage of a lower. rate,

How does this plan compare to the FDIC plan. See next blog.

Lots of blame to go around for lots of stuff. This for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act#Repeal_of_the_Act

As for Mark Souder, possibly the only smart thing he has EVER said.

How many times did I hear Pres. Bush brag about home ownership rates increasing and that being a sign of his "successful" economic and tax policies?

So he and the GOP will take the credit as long as times were good and home values were increasing. But when it bottoms out...its the Democrats and minorities fault!

Stay classy GOP!

From what I gather only 5% [a normal and known number] of the subprime loans went bad and this wasnt enough to cause the credit crisis.

Another fallacy with the republican fixation on the CRA [community reinvestment act] well the problem with that is investment banks, the ones who chopped the mortgages into asset backed paper, was not subject to the CRA.

Many small banks, who held the mortgages instead of turning them into stocks, are doing quite well.

Ben Bernake suggest help for mortgage holders

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

Ben S. Bernake, chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned on Thursday that the soaring number of foreclosures threatened the economy. He then proposed some ideas — government-engineered loan modifications, and more taxpayer money to help people refinance.

At the Treasury Department, meanwhile, top officials continued to work on a plan to bolster the housing market by subsidizing 30-year home mortgages with rates as low as 4.5 percent — a level that home buyers have not seen since the early 1960s.

Since the financial crisis began last summer, both the Fed and the Treasury had focused almost exclusively on patching up the financial system — propping up banks, Wall Street firms, money market funds and issuers of commercial debt.

The new focus on helping individuals could create a bitter split between those want to buy homes and those who have homes.

The cheap mortgages would be available only for people buying houses, not the roughly 50 million families that already have mortgages and would want to refinance at a lower rate. As a result, the plan offers no direct relief to the millions of people who face foreclosure because they took out exotic mortgages that they could not afford. Nor would the plan offer any benefit to people who have stayed current on their mortgages and would simply be interested in taking advantage of a lower. rate,

How does this plan compare to the FDIC plan. See next blog.

"It gets very frustrating to figure out what to do next if nobody's responsible for anything."

"Congressional Republicans finally got their big chance to blame the financial crisis on the Democrats."

Welcome to infantiladome! Not an adult in sight...

In 2004 I testified at the Federal Reserve Hearing in Boston. While the subject of the hearing was not directly related to this present debate, it was a first cousin. Namely, I asserted that the ongoing mergers of USA banks would create conditions that would make the successors untouchable and too large to be controlled. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors voted 6-0 against my recommendations.
Regarding blame: There were a few Democrats who were culpable, such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (directly) and ugg, my buddy Joe Biden (indirectly). (Biden was a grand supporter of statutorily empowerment of credit card companies.) Specifically, on his watch, the credit card companies managed to raise the maximum legal interest rates and they gained the ability to change the terms of the lending agreement at will by merely claiming to send a revised conditions list along with the monthly billing statement. (In a cable TV interview with CNBC, Kenneth Lewis, CEO of Bank of America admitted that he never reads the small print that accompanies his own charge-card statement.) Biden represents Delaware, the former HQ of MBNA. Poetically, in the end, Bank of America (Charlotte) bought MBNA.
That said, the bulk of the blame resides with the Republicans. They set in motion the unlimited rights of the economically powerful. The controlled the House of Representatives (and assigned committees) when the jurisdiction over the Office of the Comptroller of Currency was reassigned from the pro-consumer (and left-leaning) House Committee on Energy and Commerce to the big-bank dominated House Committee on Financial Services. The White House moreover appointed the Agency Exec. (Comptroller of Currency) who became a prolific rubber-stamp for banking abuse.
According to Wikipedia: "The OCC was created by Abraham Lincoln to fund the American Civil War but was later transformed into a regulatory agency to instill confidence in the National Banking system and protect consumers from misleading business practices."
Under the Bush-W White House, it became a refuge for extortionists. The following URL is a link to a well composed RICO complaint, filed against Fleet Bank (now Bank of America) and its attorneys.
http://miniluv.zoomshare.com/files/Tare-Rico/TARE_RICO_case-statement.pdf (PDF file -- 650KB)
The petitioner is a very interesting character who also testified at the Fed hearing in 2004. His is not a lawyer but a review of the linked materials will show that his brief is well composed. However, due to political conditions, namely (Republican) A.G. Gonzales, et al, this pleading was quashed, along with several of his other well founded complaints. Under the Bush White House, the big banks were held above the law--in a country-club of their design which they owned outright [read: U.S. Government].
PS: If anyone wishes to see the accompanying PDFs (Rico Predicate Acts Declaration and Appendix), I will check back to this blog over the next week and furnish those links--as requested. (This web site only permits one URL per post).

Saying that no one could have seen the problems coming is a crappy excuse. These toads knew they were handing out crap mortgages but all thought they were insulated from risk. What absolute nonsense. They should be throw in jail for their crimes.

Jimbo observes: Saying that no one could have seen the problems coming is a crappy excuse.

Especially given that Ron Paul and a few others were warning about it years ago.

The big-time power brokers in the government chose to ignore them all then (of course the media followed suit), and they're managing to get the world to ignore the fact that they ignored the warnings then, and did so much to OUR detriment.

Ames:
Bush does not get blamed for the corrupt political environment in places like Chicago. He gets blamed for 99.9% of the rest of the problems we must now contend with. He was the worst president in the history of bad presidents. As I said upon his inauguration: Go inie-meenie-miney-moe down the streets of Seoul, South Korea to select a U.S. President from among the hot-dog vendors and fake Gucci handbag peddlers and (English speaking or not) we could not have done worse and likely would have done far, far better.
The peddler would:
a- Be hard working (Bush rolled out of bed upon his 40th birthday and figured he had to quit the sauce to run for President).
b- Be self made (Bush was a trust-fund story).
c- Be analytical and business savvy (Bush thinks we can borrow trillions from our grandchildren, mainly because in his semi-retarded mind, Jesus will be here before the notes become due)
Bush is a brand, like 'Sara Lee', not a President. I used to count the days till his term ends, now I am counting the minutes and soon enough, I will begin counting the seconds.

Minitrue strikes again.
The thought police have spoken in the only language they know, silence.

This Is All Coming Back.... A Few Months Ago, I Was In Court With A Corrupt Judge And Layers, And All Were Caught Changing Documents, and Falsifying Records. I Also Did A Segment About The Judge, ZEKE ZIEDLER!UCC1-207.9 (Without Predjudice). And Prooved He Was Corrupt. What Is Great Is That Channel 11 News, Fox 11 Does WEDNESDAYS Child (Foster Care System Work), With Christine Divine. )I even Asked If She Could Stand In The Way. Will Then On Television Here Comes FREDDIEMAC Doing A Segment On This Same Criminal. And I Called Them And Accused Them Of Criminals Corruption. There Is More That Will Come Up! This Is A Blessing. Let These People CRIMINALS OF CORRUPTION! Fall. They Need To Be Stopped! Same As These Bankers, And Same With These Morgage Companys! They Need To Be Taken Out And Stopped. Sent To Prison! They Committed Crimes That If We Committed These Same Crimes, We Wouldnt Get Off! I Have Proof Of That! Officials Stealing Funds, But Payed Back. But They Were Used To Throw People In Jail And Prison!? They Committed A Crime Doing The Same Thing! They Are Criminals Who also Need To Be Charged! Your Days Are Coming I Say To All Involved. UCC1-207.9 (without Predjudice). 1-951-224-2788 or 909-709-7531.EMail: sbrendasara48@Yahoo.com

Ok, all loans being made during the inflated housing bubble circus was made possible by the very, very, and I shall say it again, very low discount rate that the, abominable, federal reserve decided on.
Hey big lender of last resort now you've lowered it yet again!!! Oh yeah, that's right to stimulate the economy...Riiight!

Fannie and Freddie were not placed in receivership. They were placed in conservatorship. A company can emerge intact from conservatorship, but a company in receivership is doomed.

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
What becomes of Janesville, Wisconsin, now that GM's left town?
The other side of Gitmo.
American Holidays