U.S. Government Makes Uncharacteristically Great Decision, Spends Decade Trying to Undo It

Bloomberg – Too Big to Fix: Fannie and Freddie Are Still a Mess

I never pass up an article about mortgage markets, so once I saw Bloomberg offering their opinion on why Fannie and Freddie are “still a mess” ten years into conservatorship, I was in from the jump.

Outside of the economic and reputational damage it caused, I’m a big fan of the Financial Crisis, even the fact that we call it “The Financial Crisis” – like there never was or never will be another one. I’m a big finance guy and even bigger policy wonk, so the storylines that emerged out of that period are right up my alley. Most have played out in full and been relegated to the dustbin of history, becoming more folklore nowadays than relevant discussions. There is one that remains, though: the re-privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie and Freddie are known as Government-sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). They’re private companies that were basically granted monopoly status by the U.S. government in order to keep the mortgage markets functioning smoothly and encourage home ownership. They each have lines of credit with the Treasury Department, are exempt from state and local taxes and, despite being publicly-traded, they’re not regulated by the SEC. Their business models consist of buying private label mortgages, securitizing them and then guaranteeing the mortgages to ensure that interest and principal payments are made on the subsequent mortgage bonds.

The two companies got into a whole heap of trouble in 2008 when the subprime market began to implode and those guarantees became problematic. Long story short: the feds stepped in and the two companies were taken over by the government. In return for the bail out, the Treasury received $1B in preferred stock with a 10% coupon from each entity, as well as warrants for 79.9% of each of their the common stock.

The idea at the time was to bail these two private companies out, stabilize the mortgage markets and then return them back to shareholders at a profit for the taxpayers a la the AIG bailout. However, ten years into the bailout and the government is not one step closer to figuring out what the future will look like for the companies. The problem is two-fold here and, surprisingly, has nothing to do with partisan politics. The first issue is that the two entities are so massive, so integral to the U.S. economy, that any sweeping changes would require years of heavy lifting and, with the stakes so high, nobody has tried in earnest to restructure the companies and return them to private investors. The second issue is that well, the current structure is… working? We’re ten years into this relationship and so far, so good. The mortgage markets are running as smoothly as ever, Fannie and Freddie have returned to profitability and the Treasury is clipping a 10% coupon on its preferred interests. Not to mention, the Treasury mandated that any profit Fannie or Freddie generate be remitted to taxpayers in the form of dividend distributions as well. If you need a summary: the bail out worked and the taxpayers are making a killing. Status quo is always good for governments and this situation is no different – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Unsurprisingly, not everyone feels that way. Some big name funds like Paulson & Co. and Fairholme have taken large stakes in the companies’ remaining public equity and have preached, quite loudly, that the companies should be returned to private investors and that they’d be able to were the Treasury not siphoning their profits each quarter. On the other hand, you have some politicians that believe the mortgage markets should be a private capital game or that the current situation is an unsustainable band-aid fix.

To these parties I ask: why? For what reason is the current situation unsustainable? Why is it imperative that Fannie and Freddie regain their status as private companies? Forget the fact that Fannie and Freddie were never truly private – any company with tax exempt status and a revolver with the Treasury is far from private. The fact is that homeowners are able to take out reasonably priced mortgages from private companies, bond investors are getting their low risk yield and the taxpayers are making money. The system works! “But it’s a band-aid fix! It was never meant to be this way!” True, very true. You know what else is true though? Every day the government doesn’t do anything to amend the current structure is a day the band-aid fix becomes a little more permanent. Slowly and slowly, as new and old elected officials move in and out of Washington, each Congress becomes a little more detached from the whole thing and will elect to do nothing – as long as everything is functioning as it should.

If you take a step back and actually look at how the system is working now, it seems like this is how it was always supposed to be. Private companies are investing in the mortgage market, consumers are buying homes, taxpayers are generating a profit and the government has a policy tool in Fannie and Freddie. Don’t get me wrong, that was not by design. It was a happy accident that the feds stepped in for a decade and have been successfully running the largest financial services companies on the planet. Let’s not screw this up.

 

 

Barney Frank is Gonna Be Pissed…

“CNBC – Sub-prime mortgages make a comeback—with a new name and soaring demand

The wheel. The printing press. Sub-prime mortgage securitization.

The three greatest innovations in human history. Prior to the wheel, ancient man was destined to live a relatively stationary life. There was no ability to explore, hunt and migrate beyond the area that you could walk and carry your belongings. It resulted in tribes and solitude. Before Gutenberg, Western Civilization was mired in a medieval rut. People relied on scribes to replicate texts, making it almost impossible to spread new ideas en masse. Once the printing press entered the scene, the great enlightenment took off, leading to what we know as The Renaissance. Preceding the boom in sub-prime mortgage securitization, banks were relegated to making markets in the infinitely boring world of agency paper and prime, private label mortgages. It was almost impossible to make a decent buck, the typical structured finance banker usually only had two or three different pairs of Gucci 53’s – these were trying times, indeed. Once Angelo Mozilo started slingin’ subprime credit around the West Coast, though, things would never be the same. Bankers were closing deals and collecting fees hand over fist. Working at a ratings agency wasn’t nearly as bad (this pertains to working in the structured finance group, can’t say the same for corporates or munis). There were even new industries growing as bankers left their analysts behind to set up their own shop as CDO managers. This was the height of human ingenuity and it changed the world (while making a handful of people a bunch of money).

Look – I’m not here to praise what happened with the sub-prime mortgage boom, but I’m not here to relentlessly bash it either, no matter how snide and sarcastic the previous paragraph was. There is no doubt that the boom in sub-prime credit and the securitization machine that fueled it played a large role in the financial crisis (side note: I wonder when we’ll stop calling it THE financial crisis, like there haven’t been many before and will be many after). But there were also other causes as well, like the rewrite of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995, which incentivized banks to extend mortgage credit to communities with outsized populations of “credit deprived” citizens in order to stimulate local economies that needed it (good!). That also meant that banks needed to throw their standard underwriting practices out the window and lend money to people who were previously deemed unworthy of credit in the first place (bad!). One could also look to Alan Greenspan’s tenure at The Fed, where he opened the monetary spigots and took, what some believe to be, too much of a laissez faire attitude toward regulating the exploding sub-prime mortgage markets.

Securitization (sub-prime included) is a much-maligned, but widely misunderstood capital markets mechanism that does have great benefits. It plays a very important role in a modern, credit-based economy that takes place largely behind the scenes. The purpose of securitization is to assist banks in financing the borrowing activities of a large pool of individuals or corporations through the use of third party (investor) capital. The beauty is, you can securitize almost anything: mortgages, credit card balnces, aircraft leases, capital assets, you name it. Hell, even David Bowie securitized the future profits from his catalog. In a nutshell, banks are able to extend credit to borrowers, structure the future interest/principal cash flows from the borrowers into securities and sell those to investors. This allows the bank to move the debt off its own balance sheet, freeing up the capital to continue lending into the economy. This is a great thing if done in a proper way and I doubt everyone really understands how much of an impact it has on their daily life (including allowing us to live and spend the way we do).

Sure, things got out of hand last time and it really did blow up in our faces. But when I see alarmist headlines like this out of CNBC it makes me shake my head, because lending to people who need it is a good thing and all that does is perpetuate the belief that these funding mechanisms are inherently detrimental to society. Sub-prime mortgages and securitization didn’t cause the financial crisis, people did (and odds are, they’ll do it again with something else).