Taxpayers would no longer be on the line for subsidizing home loans.

The Washington Post on Fannie/Freddie:

"By Zachary A. Goldfarb

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 22, 2008; D01

Policymakers are looking to revamp the nation's home loan system next year after the collapse of U.S. housing and mortgage markets spurred the current economic crisis.

Under one possible approach, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federally run companies that control half of the nation's $11 trillion mortgage market, would disappear, leaving lending primarily to private banks( YES ). Taxpayers would no longer be on the line for subsidizing home loans( GOOD ). But analysts say it could become much harder to get a mortgage -- at least one with a relatively low interest rate and a 30-year term( AND ? ).

Under another approach, Fannie and Freddie would remain. They could continue as private companies, trying to strike the difficult balance between the demands of profit-seeking shareholders and those of policy-oriented lawmakers. They could also be turned into government agencies. In either of these cases, taxpayers would remain potentially exposed to trillions of dollars in losses( PLEASE NO ).

The debate comes after the nation endured a bruising effort to promote homeownership in the past decade. Fannie and Freddie provided hundreds of billions of dollars in loans to people with blemished credit records or other financial limitations, which led to huge losses and the government seizing the firms in September as the financial crisis escalated. The government agreed to cover as much as $200 billion in losses( TOO MUCH ).

Now policymakers are looking at ways to prevent a relapse while maintaining Fannie and Freddie's charge of supplying consistent funding for mortgages. Fannie, Freddie and government agencies are funding nearly all of the nation's home loans; private lenders have all but disappeared( CROWDING OUT ).

"If we want to divorce the federal government from the risks of the housing system, you would privatize it," said Howard Glaser, a housing consultant who has worked for Fannie and Freddie. "The cost of that is you never know if you'll have mortgage finance available. Case in point: today( NOT SURE OF THAT )."

Fannie and Freddie were chartered by Congress 40 years ago as private companies with a government mandate to buy mortgages from lenders, package them, guarantee them against default and sell them to investors around the world. As a result, borrowers in big cities or small towns could go to big banks or small thrifts and get a 30-year, fixed-rate loan at an affordable rate.

But risks always loomed. Investors assumed that the government backed Fannie and Freddie, even if they did not have such support officially( IMPLICIT GUARANTEE PROVED CORRECT ). As a result, the companies could borrow cheaply and grow big -- with as much outstanding debt as the U.S. government. But the housing crisis crippled the companies, prompting the Bush administration to take them over out of concern they'd severely damage the world financial system.

Some longtime supporters of Fannie and Freddie say they must change, but still see a need for the government to play a role. "The Fannie and Freddie model has to be approached and the private-public entanglement, I think, will be undone," Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in a recent interview. Frank said the reform of Fannie and Freddie is likely to include "some subsidy( THIS IS BETTER ) for enhanced affordability and increasing the flow of mortgages."

But there is little agreement about precisely how to restructure them. While Frank no longer thinks the hybrid model( THANKFULLY ) is viable, another influential lawmaker does. "The hybrid is the best( FOOLISH. ZERO LEARNING CURVE )," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who leads the Joint Economic Committee. "The hybrid nature should remain."

President-elect Barack Obama has said little on the topic. Obama's chief economic adviser, former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, has long been a critic of the risks posed by Fannie and Freddie. In a Washington Post opinion piece this past summer, Summers wrote that the government should use Fannie and Freddie to support the housing market during the crisis and that the government should then "divide their functions into government and private components, the latter of which would be sold off in multiple pieces( NO HYBRID HE SAID )."

One model gaining attention among some top policymakers would incorporate public and private elements, dividing Fannie and Freddie into separate components. One part of Fannie and Freddie's business involves buying mortgage bonds and other assets, holding them in a portfolio and trading them -- much like any other investment fund. This component would be privatized, with no government backing( FINE ).

A much bigger part involves the guarantee business, where Fannie and Freddie pool mortgages and guarantee timely payment of principal and interest. This area would receive explicit government backing( IF SO, IT SHOULD BE EXPLICIT ), possibly from the Treasury if it agrees to insure mortgages( CDSs ) in exchange for a fee.

Other options under discussion include turning the companies into public utilities, which would keep them highly regulated( THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE ), or cooperatives of large banks or of the Federal Home Loans Banks( FINE, IF PRIVATE ).

Some advocates of reducing or eliminating the government's role in the mortgage market argue that policymakers have erred in providing so much support to keeping mortgage rates low over the years -- not just through Fannie and Freddie but with tax breaks and accounting rules that made it easier for banks to own mortgage securities. Low interest rates, they argue, have artificially inflated housing prices and led too many people to buy homes with loans they cannot afford( I DON'T LIKE THE SUBSIDIES, BUT INDIVIDUAL HUMAN ACTIONS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BAD LOANS ).

"The problem with subsidizing mortgages is you're subsidizing people getting into debt. You're putting people into houses with no equity( THIS YOU SHOULDN'T DO )," said Arnold Kling, a former economist at both the Federal Reserve and Freddie Mac. "The goal should be getting people to own homes on a sound basis( TRUE )."

Kling would prefer that the government subsidize a down payment on a home, either through a tax-free savings account or another mechanism( I AGREE ).

Lawrence White, a professor of economics at New York University, argues that all the measures focused on the mortgage market have diverted capital from other important parts of the economy( TO SOME EXTENT THAT IS TRUE, BUT THAT'S UP TO INDIVIDUALS ).

"We invest more in residential structures and related things and less in factories and less in human capital," he said. "There are trade-offs. Investors have their choice between investing in a General Motors bond and a mortgage bond( TRUE )."

There are a number of risks associated with the private model. Anthony Sanders, a professor of finance at Arizona State University, argues that there's no guarantee that the private markets would do an adequate job of keeping the system functioning well. "Let's be honest: The commercial banks did not do a very good job since 2003" when they rushed into subprime loans, he said( BUT THEY ASSUMED IMPLICIT GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES ).

But Sanders also rejects the idea that Fannie and Freddie should be turned into a government agency, like the Federal Housing Administration. "If we load everything on the books of the federal government and there's no incentive to perform," he said, "we will see a lack of monitoring, we'll see underperformance( OK )."

In the past, the companies' powerful corps of lobbyists( YES ) could counter efforts to change the way they do business. Their lobbying activities stopped when the government took them over in September. Still, the companies themselves may weigh in.

Top executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been assigned to study what the companies and mortgage market would look like if Fannie and Freddie were not what they are today, but they won't be making recommendations.

"I don't have a fixed view on this right now," said Fannie Mae chief executive Herbert M. Allison Jr., whom the government selected to lead the company. "I believe that the approach should be less about Fannie and Freddie and more about how to best meet the needs of the American public and promote responsible homeownership ( GOOD IDEA )."

Staff writer Lori Montgomery contributed to this report."

This report surprised me, given the supposed centrality of the Mayer/Hubbard plan in recent discussions, which would seem to necessitate a government role in the program.

"he was prepared to hold off introducing new taxes for his first two years as president."

It doesn't look like President Obama will raise taxes. Good news. They will probably wait for the Bush Tax Cuts to expire, and deal with the issue then. From the FT:

"Democratic officials made clear on Sunday that the cost of Barack Obama’s economic rescue plan would run into hundreds of billions of dollars and hinted he was prepared to hold off introducing new taxes for his first two years as president.'

This is good news. Wise Policy.

"Over the weekend, the president-elect revealed the outlines of a sweeping programme aimed at creating or saving 2.5m jobs by January 2011 through investment in infrastructure, public services and “green” technology."

I believe that infrastructure spending should be the primary thrust of the stimulus. Remember, I don't consider UI and other social safety net provisions, which are very important, to be part of the stimulus as I define it.

"Chuck Schumer, a leading Democratic senator, predicted it could be as much as $500bn-$700bn. “It’s a little like having a new New Deal, but you have to do it before the Depression. Not after,” he told ABC’s This Week."

I'm fine with the figure, but would like to see actual plans on how it will be spent.

"In an olive branch to Republicans, Mr Axelrod floated the possibility that the president-elect might wait for the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010 rather than acting sooner to raise rates for high earners."

What to do about these tax cuts should wait until we get to 2010. Period.

The Bad Sleep Well or Rashomon?

Here's Bloomberg on Paulson's testimony. You're right, you're right, to me it's a bit like Rashomon:

"Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson plans to use the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue program to help relieve pressures on consumer credit, scrapping an effort to buy devalued mortgage assets.

``Illiquidity in this sector is raising the cost and reducing the availability of car loans, student loans and credit cards,'' Paulson said today in a speech at the Treasury in Washington. ``This is creating a heavy burden on the American people and reducing the number of jobs in our economy.''

His remarks are an acknowledgement that the pitch he made to Congress for the bailout hasn't delivered what was promised. Paulson sold the Troubled Asset Relief Program as a way to rid bank balance sheets of illiquid mortgage assets, and he may encounter resistance from Congress for the remaining $350 billion after using most of the first half to buy bank stakes."

No kidding?

"Lawmakers will ``put his feet to the fire,'' said Kevin Petrasic, a former official at the Office of Thrift Supervision, now an attorney with the Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker law firm in Washington. ``I'm not sure how you get around dealing with what is clearly the congressional intent.''

Charles Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said the shift makes ``you wonder if they really know what they're doing.'' Grassley, in a letter to Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, raised the possibility Congress could block appropriation of the remaining $350 million under the rescue package.

``Congress can act any time to revoke the Treasury's authority,'' Grassley said. ``They will be watched and they will be questioned.''

Well, here's my take:

1) He doesn't really know what he's doing

2) He doesn't need asbestos shoes ( Between Waxman, Frank, and Grassley, I don't know who scares me less )

"Paulson said he has no regrets for the revised plan. ``I will never apologize for changing a strategy or an approach if the facts change,'' he said."

God, don't quote Keynes.

"Officials are considering using a portion of the bailout money to ``encourage private investors to come back to this troubled market,'' he said.

The Treasury chief said the department is also considering having companies that accept new taxpayer funding get matching private capital. Buying ``illiquid'' mortgage-related assets -- the reason the program was established a month ago -- is no longer being considered, he said.

``We will continue to examine whether targeted forms of asset purchase can play a useful role,'' he said."

So far, no one yet knows what this public/private plan is, except, that it's public/private, which, correct me if I'm wrong, it already was.

``A collapse of the American automobile industry would be the worst possible thing that could happen at a time when we are already weakened,'' Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. He also said he disagreed with Paulson's decision to forgo buying bad assets."

I like Frank, but that's hyperbole. This business is slowly dying. This is simply a way to allow workers in roughed up states to transition more easily over time. I understand the human dilemma.

He also said he disagreed with Paulson's decision to forgo buying bad assets.

``That was an important part of the way we sold the program, and I think he's making a mistake,'' Frank said."

Talk about moral hazard. These are empty threats.

"Paulson said he has no timeline for notifying Congress of his intent to use the remaining TARP funds, and reiterated that he's ``comfortable'' that $700 billion is ``what we need'' to stabilize the financial system."

I know that this follows from my Austinian philosophy, but this system talk leads to fruitless analysis.

"Some lawmakers are also calling for greater oversight over use of the funds. Senator Charles Schumer of New York today reiterated his calls for Paulson to require banks taking public capital to increase lending rather than use the money to finance takeovers.

``The TARP really gave no incentive for the banks to lend the money, carrot or stick, and that's a big problem,'' he said on a conference call with reporters."

And you know, dummy bloggers like me said that.

Maybe instead of Rashomon, we should view The Bad Sleep Well again.