Showing posts with label Fannie Mae. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fannie Mae. Show all posts

Giveaway Nation

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain


By Alan Caruba

I am not sure that Americans, the generations born since the New Deal of the 1930s, are ready to give up all the goodies that the federal government provides.

My father’s and my generation found comfort in Social Security checks and Medicare payments, but as the late Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman, used to say, “There is no such thing as a free lunch” by which he meant you pay for what you get one way or the other, even it does not seem obvious at the time. When it comes to federal loans and guarantees, John Q. Public gets stuck with the bill.

As a result of government housing programs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the nation ran smack into a financial crisis in 2008 and got its credit rating downgraded in 2011.

Now Moody’s, another rating agency, is warning that the student loan program, dubbed Sallie Mae, could implode leaving Americans holding the tab for millions in unpaid loans as students graduate into an economy where no jobs would enable them to pay them back. There’s a long history of students who simply defaulted on these loans.

Typical of the idiotic double-down approach of the Obama administration, the volume of these loans has actually accelerated during the recession. The student loan debt now exceeds credit card debt. Put plainly, not all young people should go to college just as not all people should own a house. There was a time when some standards were expected, but no more when bankers and lenders just want to pig out at the federal trough.

There was a lot of talk about cutting the size of government and its programs during the debt ceiling debate. It ended with the largest historic increase, adding another trillion to the national debt. The result was Standard & Poor's downgrade of the nation’s credit rating! No more blank check said S&P and they were right.

A bogus congressional “super committee” has been created to do this, but it is doubtful a divided Congress can achieve this unless and until new elections put people in office that actually will. Turning this function over to a dozen Congress critters is a very bad idea.

Fox Business News anchor, John Stossel, published a commentary on his July 28 blog that cited some recommended reductions by libertarian and conservative experts at the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation.

Many involved eliminating whole federal departments and agencies that included the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, Interior, and Labor.

That kind of draconian approach—his blog was titled “Take a Chainsaw to the Budget”—has a certain kind of appeal, but only if one puts aside that some of these departments actually have some good programs amidst the questionable ones. We tend to forget that the Preamble to the Constitution includes the objective to “promote the general welfare” of Americans, though it has been much abused, like the commerce clause, by progressives over the years.

The Constitution authorizes the government “to borrow money on the credit of the United States” while also stating that “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law” while calling for a budget to be “published from time to time.” The Democrats haven't submitted a budget in over 800 days, though the Republicans did when they took control of the House.

The debt the nation has incurred has been authorized by a succession of Congresses, but mostly dates to the exigencies of the Great Depression of the 1930s when “entitlement” and make-work projects—among them the Hoover Dam and the Tennessee Valley Authority—were initiated to relieve the plight of American workers and provide electrification of significant benefit.

Future events are impossible to predict. Neither the consequences of those programs, nor a Second World War, the threat of the Soviet Union posed, nor were the recessions that followed were entirely predictable at the time. As in the case of 9/11, Congresses reacted within their existing time frame.

There is, for example, no justification for public broadcasting subsidies when it is clear that PBS is controlled by politically motivated liberals.

Cutting the Defense Department budget is pure folly as a weak nation will surely be attacked. There’s room for reductions, but maintaining a strong military is necessary to “provide for the common defense” as set forth in the Constitution. Eliminating many of our foreign bases would save billions.

There are, among the recommendations, many good ones such as privatizing the Army Corps of Engineers and the Post Office. Leasing the coastal plain of ANWR would generate $1.5 billion in addition to providing billions of barrels of oil to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The Gulf of Mexico must be reopened to more drilling.

The “War on Drugs”, estimated to cost $15 billion, is widely regarded as a failure. Drug laws fill our prisons to the point where the U.S. has more people in prison, often for minor drug offenses, than any other nation. Greater efforts at interdiction at our porous borders would help. Legalizing marijuana would help.

Eliminating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two “government sponsored entities” that currently own half of all mortgages would take the government out of the housing mortgage business and return it to banks and mortgage firms that would be forced to be more prudent. The housing bubble was largely caused by these two agencies and the banks and mortgage lenders that knew a government bailout was guaranteed no matter how many bad loans they made.

Instead, the White House is talking about renting homes back to those foreclosed upon, thereby making the central government the largest holder of private property! That is Communism, pure and simple.

Stossel and the Washington, D.C. think tanks offered lots of other options, but the greatest option of all is an end to mindless, often insane, government spending and that includes major, rapid changes to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Don’t look for that to happen anytime soon.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
More aboutGiveaway Nation

The Fannie Mae Mess

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

By Alan Caruba

It was a relatively short Wall Street Journal article on Saturday, May 7th. “Fannie Mae Falls Back Into the Loss Column.”

“Fannie Mae reported a net loss of $6.5 billion for the first quarter as a weakening housing market dashed hopes that the company had stabilities,” wrote Nick Timiraos. “Fannie said Friday it would ask the government for a fresh taxpayer infusion of $6.2 billion after paying dividends to the Treasury.”

What we are witnessing—and paying for—is the way this “government-sponsored enterprise” (GSE) has distorted the nation’s housing market since it came into being. Freddie Mac is another GSE that shares the blame.

In a Cato Institute Policy Analysis by David Reiss, the author notes that “Fannie and Freddie are extraordinary large companies: together they own or guarantee more than 40 percent of all the residential mortgages in the United States. This amounts to more than 4.2 trillion dollars in mortgages.”

In a free market economy, when did anyone ever imagine that the government would “own or guarantee” the vast bulk of home mortgages? And why? This is the result of socialist policies that assert that everyone should have an imagined “right” to own a home when common sense says that not everyone could qualify for this.

The result was a storm of “ninja loans”, no job, no assets, and in many cases no down payments to secure the loan. The full story, however, is much worse. In an April Business Week commentary, “The Destruction of Economic Facts”,  economist, Hernando de Soto, noted now the development of systems to record facts regarding the ownership of property that “organized, standardized, recorded, continually updated, and easily accessible” ensured that the essential trust required to engage in commerce have been destroyed.

“Over the past 20 years,” wrote De Soto, “Americans and Europeans have quietly gone about destroying these facts. The very systems that could have provided markets and governments with the means to understand the global financial crisis—and to prevent another one—are being eroded.”

“The results are hardly surprising. In the U.S., trust has broken down between banks and subprime mortgage holders; between foreclosing agents and courts; between banks and their investors—even between banks and other banks.”

Little wonder, then, that Reiss, an associate professor at Brooklyn Law School, says the “current state of affairs presents an opportunity to reform the two companies (Fannie and Freddie) and the manner in which the residential mortgage market is structured.” His answer is that both should be privatized so they can compete on an even playing field with other financial institutions.”

While acknowledging that, during the 1970s, Fannie and Freddie, along with Ginnie Mae, “effectively created the secondary mortgage market”, Reiss warns that “the two companies have two of the most powerful lobbying machines in Washington” citing them as “poor agents of public policy…with unmatched influence.”

Fannie and Freddie are classic examples of why government should be restricted to its role of protecting consumers and kept from engaging in commercial enterprises. Alice Rivlin, when she was the director of the Office of Management and Budget, warned that GSE’s were created because wholly private financial institutions were believed to be incapable of providing an adequate supply of loanable funds at all times and to all regions of the nation for specified types of borrowers.” That, however, is not a function of government.

As we have seen in the financial crisis of 2008, the combination of untraceable owners of “bundled” mortgages as securities and the inability of the GSE’s to meet their accumulated obligations—the 40 percent of mortgages they owned—combined to force the government to provide billions in public funds to protect and sustain them. And Fannie is back, hat in hand, asking for $6.2 billion more!

The U.S. government has to get out of the business of guaranteeing the investments of GSEs because, as Reiss notes (1) the cost of the government’s guarantee is hidden because it is off-budget; (2) the cost is particularly difficult to quantify; and (3) the guarantees are not capped by the government.

This nation is sharply divided between unrealistic liberal advocates of programs and agencies such as the GSEs and conservatives who correctly fear the growth of government, particularly into sectors of the economy that should remain in the hands of private institutions that must act with a measure of prudence that open checkbook of government does not permit.

Reiss’s analysis states that “Fannie and Freddie reflect what is worst in GSE design.” Like all elements of government, “After fulfilling their purpose of creating a national mortgage market, they have taken on monstrously large lives of their own.”

It is going to require a lot of political courage to take the steps necessary to save the economy and protect it against future abuses such as Fannie and Freddie.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
More aboutThe Fannie Mae Mess

Good Riddance to Fannie & Freddie

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain


By Alan Caruba

I have this theory that we, the adults, all function at the emotional level of 13-year-olds, the age of bar mitzvahs in which the young man can declare to the congregation, “Today I am a man.” (Insert laughter here)

They are, of course, not adults and must wait until the ancient age of 18 to vote and 21 to get plastered. At that age, one would think that getting a bank loan to purchase a home would be difficult. Until the housing bubble burst, it wasn’t.

Before the financial collapse of the housing mortgage market in late 2008, some banks were making “Ninja” loans—no income, no job, no assets.

In a recently published book, “How the West was Lost: Fifty Years of Economic Folly—and the Stark Choices Ahead”, internationally acclaimed economist, Dambisa Moyo, delivers the bad news.

“When, as early as the 1930s, the United States government embarked on an aggressive homeownership strategy designed to get millions of Americans on the housing ladder,” wrote Ms. Moyo, “it did not foresee what it was letting itself in for.”

“Distracted by the siren call of home ownership for all, policymakers inadvertently launched a fifty-year culture of debt and spawned a generation that set their economies firmly down a path of economic destruction.”

At the heart of the collapse were two “government-sponsored entities”, familiarly called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “By promoting a strategy of broad homeownership sweetened by subsidy, Western governments have done more harm than good and are actually contributing to the demise of Western economies as a whole.”

Ladies and gents, I give you the socialist economies of Greece, Spain, England, Ireland, et al. To which one must add, of course, the United States of America, the greatest economy on earth since the end of World War Two and one that still generates a gross domestic product annually of $14 trillion.

Writing on CNNMonday.com, Chris Isidore summed up the problem. “When the dust settles, the federal bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be the most expensive government rescue of the financial crisis—it already stands at $153 billion and counting.”

American taxpayers are on the hook for the debt Fannie and Freddie accumulated before the mortgage loan collapse.

This explains why, on February 9th, The Wall Street Journal reported that the “White House Plans Revamped Mortgage Market.” How about a headline that says “White House Plans to shut down Fannie and Freddie”?

In October 2010, that’s what Emil W. Henry, Jr., the CEO of Henry, Tiger LLC and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury from 2005 to 2007, proposed in a Wall Street Journal article. He suggested it was time to eliminate the government-sponsored entities (GSEs) “moving their activities to the private sector.”

How poor was the oversight by the Treasury Department? “By the mid-2000s, the GSEs’ process of debt approval had devolved to a single notification process of Treasury, without any formal process of approval.” Fannie and Freddie sent Treasury a note!

In January, Peter J. Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was published in the Journal, “Moving Beyond Fannie and Freddie”, in which he wrote “If the 2010 election means anything, it is that the American people want the government to stop pursuing policies that put the taxpayer at risk for private failures.” You think?

“As off-budget vehicles with virtually unlimited resources,” wrote Wallison, “Fannie and Freddie were ready-made for political exploitation and advocates for low-income housing…by 2008 half of all mortgages in the U.S.—27 million—were subprime and other high-risk loans, often with little or no down payments by borrowers.”

Ms. Moyo wrote “Remember, these banking activities are not illegal. Banks and bankers are simply operating under the policies stipulated by the governments. These are the rules of the game.”

“It is perhaps no surprise that the industry which over time has shown the greatest appetite for risk is precisely the industry that had the most government guarantees on its debts: the banking sector.”

Now, if you have noticed that the word “government” keep popping up throughout this discussion to shutter Fannie and Freddie, it is no accident. They are creatures of the government despite the fiction that they were private enterprises.

The government does not belong in the mortgage loan business and never did. It doesn’t belong in the railroad business either.

The government controls all of the energy assets of the nation either as public land or through its regulatory apparatus.

It allegedly oversees the activities of Wall Street, but that didn’t stop Bernie Madoff from fleecing people of $50 billion. Or the “toxic assets” collapse.

To avoid a complete breakdown of the nation’s financial system the government had to loan billions to several banks and one “too big to fail” insurance company. Lehman Brothers did not receive a loan and failed. Other elements of the nation’s financial sector were forced to merge to avoid collapse or, in the case of Freddie and Fannie, were seized by the government.

It is the same government that not only can’t seem to find a commonsense answer to the awaiting disaster of Social Security, but it is the one that forced a bill through Congress—Obamacare—to increase the number of people on Medicare while taking $500 billion out of its account.

If 13-year-olds were running our government, these are the results you could expect.

The decision by voters to give majority power to the Republicans in the House and to elect some tough Republican Governors suggests that progress is being made against the excesses and abuses of power that have brought the nation to the brink of financial collapse. And that’s a good thing.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
More aboutGood Riddance to Fannie & Freddie

Bankrupting America

Diposkan oleh Zainal Arifain

By Alan Caruba

The very word “budget” suggests a financial plan that one expects to live within, based on how much money one earns. It suggests prudence, plus the intention to put aside some earnings as savings for future or unexpected needs.

None of this applies to the Congress of the United States of America, nor White House administrations stretching back to the days when Franklin Delano Roosevelt won election in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. He would die in 1945, three months into his fourth term.

That’s right, his fourth term! This was so unprecedented and so fearful that, in 1951 the 22nd Amendment was added to the Constitution, limiting any future president to two elected terms.

The financial crisis in which the nation finds itself today can be traced to FDR’s four terms, during which the nation went through the Great Depression. It was an economic event that could have and should have been much shorter if liberal “solutions” had not been initiated. FDR never saw an entitlement or regulatory program he would not endorse, starting with Social Security. His successor to office, Harry Truman, pushed through Medicare.

The debacle known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began back then, growing out of the notion that the government had to guarantee everyone they could live in their own home. By the time they neared collapse, they owned more than half of all the mortgages in the nation.

My friend, Ziad K. Abdelnour, president and CEO of Blackhawk Partners, Inc., a venture capital firm, recently had one of his excellent commentaries posted on the website of the Financial Policy Council.

The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac led to their being put in a conservatorship. If you owned stock in either of these “government-sponsored entitles” its worth dropped to pennies while, noted Abdelnour, all Americans “became the underwriters of $5 trillion in mortgage backed securities.”

“In September of 2008, we witnessed one of the most brazen and daring crimes ever to take place,” wrote Abdelnour. “It was pulled off, for the most part, in broad daylight and in full view of the whole world. In the space of a few days, this nation was the victim of an orchestrated theft of nearly six trillion dollars.”

September 2008 was when then-Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, told Americans that he had just asked Congress to give him a blank check to spend billions of public funds to bail out Wall Street and avoid a financial collapse.

Among the financial firms bailed out was Goldman Sachs that ended up with “at least $53 billion dollars from the U.S. government via the AIG bailout, Paulson’s ‘Troubled Assets Relief Program’, and Timothy Geithner’s later FDIC bailout called the ‘Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program.’” Geithner is the present Secretary of the Treasury.

Throughout Abdelnour’s commentary, the same names keep showing up, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs, the Federal Reserve.

Events do not just “happen.” They are caused.

On Thursday, September 15, 2008, in the midst of the Obama-McCain election campaigns, the Federal Reserve stepped in after noticing a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the U.S. in the amount of $550 billion dollars. It occurred in barely an hour or two as money was taken out electronically. The Fed closed the accounts. Had they not done so, $5.5 trillion would have been withdrawn and the U.S. economy would have collapsed.

The financial crisis catapulted Barack Obama into the Oval Office with his promise of hope and change.

Obama has just submitted his 2012 budget to Congress proposing to spend $3.75 trillion and still have a deficit of $1.65 trillion. Several leading D.C. think tanks have rational proposals for downsizing the federal government, but the Obama White House is not interested.

The nation’s Gross Domestic Product, the value of what we produce annually, is around $14 trillion. Obama’s budget would increase the debt to $15 trillion. His budget has so few cuts in it you need a magnifying glass to find them.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in the House, where all spending bills must originate, are fussing and feuding over whether to cut $50 billion or $100 billion from the budget. Someone needs to tell them that the U.S. is broke. We are rapidly on our way to becoming Greece, Italy, Ireland, or Zimbabwe.

“Current unemployment is officially about 9%; unofficially, it is almost twice that. Forty-five million Americans now receive government assistance to purchase food; nearly two million have filed bankruptcy, and more than a million have lost their homes in foreclosure proceedings.” Abdelnour cites factors few in Congress want to address.

Despite this, in his first two years in office, President Obama has increased the size of U.S. debt more than all previous presidents combined. His new budget proposes $3.75 trillion in spending.

I have always been wary of conspiracy theories, but sometimes the dates, the facts, and the personalities involved come together in too neat a package to ignore.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
More aboutBankrupting America