Don’t kill Fannie Mae


Could it get any worse for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Last week, even President Barack Obama joined the growing chorus of those who want to put them out of business.

He did so in a speech in Phoenix, outlining — at long last — his ideas for reshaping the country’s housing finance system. He called for the housing finance market to be primarily driven by private capital, with a “limited” federal role. He said that the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage should remain a mainstay of the mortgage market. And he essentially endorsed a recent bipartisan Senate bill — a complex piece of legislation that calls for winding down Fannie and Freddie over five years.

Let’s just call this what it is: capitulation. Ever since the financial crisis, Republicans have insisted that Fannie and Freddie - private companies that also have a government role, and that guarantee and securitize mortgages - were the root problem. According to their theory, the two companies drove the country off the subprime cliff, primarily because of their federal mandate to help make it possible for low-income borrowers to own homes.

The truth is pretty much the opposite. When the banks first jumped into subprime mortgages, Fannie and Freddie hung back. Only after they began losing significant market share did Fannie and Freddie decide, belatedly, to get into the game. Because they were so thinly capitalized, they had almost no cushion when the losses began to pile up.

And after the George W. Bush administration put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship — propping them up with a $185 billion bailout — they had no defenders left. Republican demands that Fannie and Freddie be put out of their misery became the sine qua non for any discussion about reshaping - and reviving - housing finance.

There is no question that Fannie and Freddie were deeply problematic companies in their heyday. They bullied anyone — members of Congress included — who tried to rein them in. They had implicit government backing that they either played up or denied, depending on the circumstances. And in addition to their guarantee business, they owned a gigantic portfolio of mortgages that many feared would bring them down.

But they also did something truly vital. When Fannie or Freddie guaranteed a mortgage, it meant that they were taking on the credit risk from the lender. That entailed two skills. The first was underwriting. Until they lost their heads in the subprime bubble, Fannie and Freddie had high underwriting standards that banks had to adhere to get a mortgage guaranteed. Second, they had to have a highly skilled hedging operation that could maneuver adeptly as interest rates changed.

And that ability of Fannie and Freddie to take on credit risk is what made that staple of American housing finance — the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage — possible. So much can happen over the course of 30 years that no bank wants to take on that risk — and no system of private capital is going to continue making those loans, at least not without some kind of government backing.

Which is why all this talk of “winding down” Fannie and Freddie, as the president put it last week, makes so little sense. In conservatorship, the two companies have been doing exactly what the country needs from them: guaranteeing prime mortgages and propping up the housing market after private capital fled.

The Senate bill under consideration does backward somersaults to kill off Fannie and Freddie while retaining a government role in the mortgage market, including the creation of a new agency to serve as a backstop to the securitization market. It is incredibly complicated, untested and probably unnecessary.

In five years as wards of the government, Fannie and Freddie have actually shown the kind of role they could play. They are no longer bullies. They don’t really function as private companies anymore — nor do they have a mission to help people gain the American dream. Their portfolio is supposed to be gradually unwound. They have more capital.

In other words, their sole role now is to guarantee and securitize mortgages. And they are making huge amounts of money — much of which is going to the government. Fannie Mae, for instance, recently announced a quarterly profit of $10.1 billion, and said it was making a $10.2 billion payment to the Treasury. “At the current pace,” The Wall Street Journal reported, “over the next year, Fannie and Freddie are likely to repay the government more money than they borrowed.”

Does housing finance need reform? Yes. Do we need private capital to return? Of course. But the easiest and most sensible reforms would take advantage of what we already have — two companies that know how to handle credit risk - instead of trying something new and untested, purely because Fannie and Freddie are political poison.

In the meantime, we should be thanking Fannie and Freddie, instead of tearing them down.

© 2013 New York Times News Service

Read more From Our Inbox stories from the Miami Herald

  • The man the Israeli-Palestinian crisis needs most? Egypt’s Mohamed Morsi.

    Less than two years ago, the situation between Israel and the Palestinian territories seemed to be on the brink of disaster. In November 2012, Israeli airstrikes pummeled the Gaza Strip while militants fired rockets back at Israeli towns. As scores of Palestinians died and Israeli families cowered, the international community seemed split and unsure about how to deal with it. Experienced international mediators looked impotent.

  • Why Obama may gamble midterms on immigration

    President Obama has said that he will act administratively on immigration before the midterm election. Pro-immigration activists are pleading with him to “go big and bold,” as Gustavo Torres, executive director of CASA de Maryland, told Buzzfeed. If Obama is in a gambling mood, he might do just that.

  • Five reasons why China has no friends

    In 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told a gathering of Asian countries that the United States “has a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons and respect for international law in the South China Sea.”

Miami Herald

Join the

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category