Skip to main content

What is up with the GSEs? Part I

 


What is up with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Let's not be afraid to get a little wonky. 

These are the two "government sponsored entities" (GSEs) that between them backstop much of the home mortgage business in the United States. They don't issue mortgages: in essence they play mortgages as a secondary market. 

That doesn't mean they are unimportant.  Rather, it means that institutions that do issue mortgages depend on the presence of Fannie and Freddie as a risk mitigator. Better than keeping the whole of the risk of every home on their own books!  

The history is important as we contemplate the Trump II administration's plans for the GSEs. But I won't go through the whole history of the two of them, which would of necessity begin in the New Deal and then spend a fair amount of time with Richard Nixon. I will do neither. 

I will, though, say something about the crisis of 2008. Then in tomorrow's entry I will speak to 2025's reform impetus.

At any rate: in August 2008 it became obvious that the siblings didn't have the capital to continue. The market expected the Treasury to 'do something,' after all, the GSE's were too big to fail. 

Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, though, said in August 2008 amidst the unfolding crisis that there would be no one-time infusion of cash. If the GSEs needed an infusion, they would have to come under the operational control of the US Treasury.        

On Saturday, September 6th, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), a big booster of every-family-must-own-a-home ideology, was thinking happy thoughts to keep the shadows away.  WaPo quoted him saying, "There's no immediate crisis. It's not like they're going to run out of money tomorrow or Monday."

There was a crisis, though, and on the following day, so as not to wait for the work week to test Frank's whistling, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put both the agencies in conservatorship. They're still there.

There is no movement underway of any visibility or significance to abolish Fannie or Freddy.  But what President Trump and acolytes seem to be preparing to do is to re-privatize the siblings, letting them out of conservatorship, off the federal government's balance sheet, and letting them re-capitalize (sell shares).  They would likely to so on terms that would reduce the sisters' over-all "footprint," for example by requiring that each charge higher fees to the mortgage issuers than had been the case.  This in turn might result in some lending staying on the issuer/banks own balance sheets or getting it taken up by non-sponsored entities.  

More thoughts on how this might play out tomorrow.       

PS.  My wish with regard to the northern Virginia special election held yesterday was granted. Yippee! 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
22 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...
Post a Comment
Read more