What to Do With Fannie and Freddie
Friday, May 31, 2013
The biggest question with the $10 trillion U.S. housing finance sector is what to do with the government-sponsored enterprises that have recently attained even greater monopoly power. Here’s a way to move beyond the political stalemate.
Compared to other countries, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were and are unique features of U.S. housing finance. They once made U.S. housing finance, according to their own pre-crisis publicity, “the envy of the world.” In those days, Fannie and Freddie were accustomed to being the stars and darlings of both Washington and Wall Street — or more precisely, being a darling of Washington made them a star of Wall Street. Fannie in particular was also a greatly feared bullyboy both in Washington and on Wall Street, and most politicians and bankers were afraid to cross or offend it.
Perhaps drunk with power, hubris, the free use of the U.S. Treasury’s credit, and nearly unlimited command of other people’s money — domestic and international — Fannie and Freddie became major perpetrators of the housing bubble, running up the leverage of the housing finance sector, inflating house prices, escalating systemic risk, and making boodles of bad loans and investments.
As in a Greek tragedy, their hubris led to humiliation. Both went utterly broke, greatly embarrassing their political cheerleaders and allies, including Senator Chris Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank (the chairmen of the respective congressional banking committees), but their taste for using other people’s money did not abate. They lost all the profits they had made for the previous 35 years, plus another $150 billion. These enormous losses were foisted on the innocent public, while the government made sure that their creditors, domestic and foreign, were paid every penny on time. Large additional losses to the public are the deadweight bureaucratic costs of the Dodd-Frank Act, sponsored by the aforementioned former political cheerleaders.
Virtually everybody agrees that the United States should not return to the flawed — indeed, disastrous — old ‘government-sponsored enterprise’ model of Fannie and Freddie before the crisis.
Now the housing crisis that Fannie and Freddie made so much worse has finally ended, and the housing cycle is turning back up, as cycles inevitably do. In the meantime, the U.S. housing finance sector has become a largely nationalized and socialized “government housing complex.” As the central part of that complex, Fannie and Freddie — now owned by, run by, and simply part of the government — have attained even greater monopoly power and an even more dominant market share than they had before the crisis — an ironic outcome! They have returned to reporting large profits, though they are still completely wards of the U.S. Treasury.
Fannie and Freddie’s current large profits are completely dependent on and buttressed by:
Having arrived where we are now, what should happen next? What should be done with Fannie and Freddie is the biggest question surrounding the $10 trillion, post-crisis American housing finance sector, one of the biggest credit markets in the world.
Virtually everybody agrees that the United States should not return to the flawed — indeed, disastrous — old “government-sponsored enterprise” model of Fannie and Freddie before the crisis, with its warped incentives, runaway leverage, and combination of socialized risk, private profit, and immense political clout. Nobody I know of is proposing this.
Enormous losses were foisted on the innocent public, while the government made sure that their creditors, domestic and foreign, were paid every penny on time.
But there the consensus ends and the sharp conceptual and ideological divisions begin. Ideally, in my view, Fannie and Freddie’s current status, which no one wants, should be brought to an end with a five-year transition. What they do that is actually a mortgage business should be truly privatized (not a fake GSE “privatization” as was done with Fannie in 1968), while their government subsidy program should become explicitly a government subsidy program and be merged into the operations of the Department of Housing, Federal Housing Administration, and Ginnie Mae. Fannie and Freddie would thus cease to exist as GSEs. The U.S. mortgage finance sector would move to being about 80 percent private and 20 percent government, instead of its current heavily nationalized status.
This straightforward program is not likely to be enacted in the current political configuration. Neither are any of the other numerous proposals. But should political stalemate allow Fannie and Freddie to continue their status quo indefinitely? If that happens, then, as wards of the government, buttressed by the Treasury, the CFPB, and the Fed, the two will continue for years to build their monopoly power, probably leading us in time into a new out-of-control cycle of excessively leveraged and politicized housing finance.
Instead, Congress should enact a medium-term program to move toward a more private, less government-dominated mortgage sector, without making final decisions about Fannie and Freddie’s ultimate fate. Such a program could include the following intermediate steps:
With such an intermediate program, the private mortgage market could gain market share, while the share of the nationalized Fannie and Freddie would be reduced. We do not have to know in advance exactly how large this healthy shift would ultimately be. We can start moving seriously in what virtually everybody agrees is the right direction.
Alex J. Pollock is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
FURTHER READING: Pollock also writes “Who Will Guarantee This Guarantor? Part Two,” “The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation: Who Will Guarantee This Guarantor?,” “Who Knew When about the LIBOR Problems?,” and “Would You Settle Your Claims on Social Security for 80 Cents on the Dollar? (I Would).” Mark J. Perry notes “FHFA House Price Index Increased in March by 7.3% vs. Last Year, Highest Annual Gain in U.S. Home Prices in Nearly 7 Years.”
Image by Dianna Ingram / Bergman Group