Tag Archives: Fannie Mae

"This One Time…..In Band Camp…"

I’m relatively new to really REALLY watching politics.  I guess, in the past, I didn’t care.  Mostly I was single, renting and didn’t make enough money to care about taxes.  The last decade has seen that ALL change.  I am no longer single, I have children, own a home, make more money and am seriously considering starting my own business.  I also spend more time at home than I used to spend before all the changes aforementioned.   Combine this with the very compelling story of last year’s election; first time in many years that a  President or Vice President wasn’t running, and you have good drama.  AND we would have the opportunity to see America’s first woman or black Presidential candidate.  All good political drama.

Back to my point.  I am really pretty new to political theater.  So, maybe as I say this, it’s really not so unusual.  Could even be par for the course.  But to me, this is absolutely stunning.  Not only in the hypocrisy of it all, but in the sheer ignorance of any semblance of economic thinking.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration pledged on Thursday to back beleaguered mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac no matter how big their losses may be in the next three years.

Serious?  Banks are paying BACK their TARP funds and these guys are asking for, and getting, more money?  At least they’ll have to be smart in their use of it, right?

It also jettisoned a demand that the two companies cut the size of their mortgage-related investment portfolios next year, allowing them to provide even more support in the near term for a housing market recovering from its worst slump in decades.

Nope.  Business as usual; continue to sell money to people who can’t afford it.

So, how is it that some businesses are capped and controlled and can’t WAIT to get out from under government control while others seem unable to even WANT to get out?  Is it political or is it simply a way of life?  Is it really possible that the Obama administration is giving political favors to supporters or, perhaps, does he simply think that a fascist* banking system is the most effective method by which to establish financial systems?

The Treasury’s announcement came just hours after the companies said their chief executives would be paid up to $6 million on an annualized basis for 2009.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are congressionally chartered companies that buy up mortgages from banks and other originators to keep mortgage markets liquid. Some of the debt is repackaged as securities and sold off to investors, and the government has been buying an increasing share.

Sadly, for Liberty loving people, it would seem that the answer is “Both”.  Obama is both paying political favors, $6 million to the CEOs, AND feels that economic fascism is the preferred method of financial systems.

Like I said, I am new to this.  Maybe this is business as usual.  But from the cheap seats, this is ugly.

*   From wiki:  Fascists promoted their ideology as a “Third Position” between capitalism and communism.  Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which the economy is collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level.  Fascists advocated a new national class-based economic system, variously termed “national corporatism”, “national socialism” or “national syndicalism”.  The common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.

Fascist governments exercised control over private property but did not nationalise it. They pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state or party-controlled.

Freddie and Fannie: Just the Beginning

I am convinced that Fannie and Freddie were the causes that led to the current recession.  I am sure that when incentives were created to give people money who had no or little ability to pay that money back, bad bad things were going to happen.

But somehow all of that got lost in all of the fall out.  What we heard was how evil those greedy corporations are.  What we heard was how Wall Street doesn’t look after Main Street.  What we heard was that it was Big Corporations that are somehow “Too Big To Fail” that brought this country to its knees.

What we didn’t hear was the story behind Fannie and Freddie:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Freddie Mac, the second largest provider of U.S. residential mortgage funding, on Friday posted a loss of $5 billion in the third quarter and predicted it would need more government support amid a “prolonged deterioration” in housing.

And why is the company losing so much money?

delinquencies worsened on loans it guarantees.

Well, heck, what can ya expect?  The little brother of Fannie Mae is surly the runt of the litter and can only look on as big sister excels, right?  Right?

Its larger rival Fannie Mae on Thursday said it would need $15 billion from the U.S. Treasury after a whopping $18.9 billion third-quarter loss.

Whoops!  Didn’t see THAT one coming.

But hey, Fannie and Freddie–ya know, they are players but really, they aren’t THAT big; are they?  Or are they?

Results at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are widely watched as a barometer of the U.S. housing market since they own or back nearly half of outstanding mortgages.

Jeepers.  By golly, they ARE that of a player in the market!  And maybe, just maybe, when those two players begin to change the way in which they do business, the rest of the market attempts to adapt?

In other words,  I guess what I’m saying is that when Fannie and Freddie, backed by good Ol’ Unc [that’s the USofA to you and me], begin too incent market forces to provide mortgages to people who can’t afford mortgages, you end up with a bunch of:

horse.shit

But hey, what’s $51.7 billion between friends?  Or even $60.9 billion?  At least your good for it, right?

Starting in 2010, the company will begin accounting for $1.8 trillion in mortgage-backed securities it guarantees on its balance sheet to meet new guidelines. This will increase interest income and interest expenses, and could have a significant negative impact on net worth, it said.

Hmm, something smells in the State of Denmark.

Shares of Freddie Mac were flat at $1.23 in light after-hours trading following the results.

And if you’ll buy shares at a buck 23, I have some fertilizer for your garden…

How to Get a Ton of People to Cross a Freeway

Incent them.

See, for a long time the whole housing crisis and economy things has been blamed on greed.  You know, greed of the bankers and the banks.  Greed of the mortgage lenders and the lending houses.  Greed on the folks thta bought and sold mortgage backed securities.  All of ’em.  all Street is just infested with greed.  [Note the absence of the greed of the home owner.  Cause’ you know, guys who earn 17k as a fry cook at the DQ aren’t being greedy when they try and buy a 400,000 dollar house.]

Never understood that.  I have always felt it’s supposed to be that way.  You know, like when I’m offered two similar jobs, I take the one that pays the most.  When trying to buy a car, I try to find the best price and then again, when given a chose between gas at $2.55 or gas at $2.85, I always pick the $2.55 price.  Always.  Never occurs to me who is more deserving.  IN fact, the only person I think of is me.  And how I benefit.  We’re all greedy.  And the whole thing depends on that.  It’s why we invent all the things that we invent.  Because we want to make money.  And because of that, we have innovations and quality of life increases and all kinds of progressive stuff.

Anyway, so, I have tried to explain it this way.  Suppose I have a hundred bucks that I wanna lend in order to make some money.  And two guys come to me wanting to borrow that money and then repay me $103.  Who am I going to lend it to?  Well, I am going to try to identify which one is better able and most likely to repay me.  Then I’m gonna lend the money to him.  Every time.  Every single time.  Always.  Not ever the other guy.  Ever.

Except.

Except if I can change the rules a little and shade gain along with risk.  That it, if I am able to enter into agreement on different terms, I may be willing to lend to the other guy.  What, you ask, would cause me to lend to the less qualified borrower?  Why, by increasing the return.  I may be willing to lend to the guy if he agrees to pay me back $115 dollars.  And so we negotiate and come to terms.  Note, however, that neither of us are going to agree to terms unless we think that it is in our best interest to do so.

Now, in this small example, can you think of a thing that would cause me to ignore the ability of the borrower to pay me back?  In other words, what would cause me to just loan that hundo out to EVERYBODY that knocked on my door?  Nothing.  I would never do that.  Ever.

Except.

Except if Ii could turn around and sell that loan to another company.  Now to compress the story…what would cause THAT company to buy these loans from lenders without knowledge of risk?  The same thing.  The ability to sell ’em.  And you know who was buyin?  Fannie and Freddie.  And you know why THEY were buyin’?  Cause they had NO downside.  If they as a company fail, the government would bail ’em out.  And they did and Uncle Sam did too.

So, I have always said that if you lined up 10,000 people on one side of I-540 and I was on the other, I could increase the number of people who tried to cross by increasing the financial incentive to do so.  And, in the end, whose fault would it be if someone was hit and killed?  Tricky huh?

But today, today I am vindicated.