Mayhem Has Engulfed This Distant French Territory
New Video of Scottie Scheffler's Arrest Paints a Very Different Picture
Comedian Hilariously Rips Into San Francisco
You Have to Be an Exceptionally Bad President to Lose Silicon Valley
The $400 Pineapple Is Now Sold Out in the US
A University System Just Repealed Its DEI Policy
Chuck Schumer Admits Democrats’ 'Ultimate Goal,' And It's Not Good
Xi Jinping Asks American Tourists to 'Save' China's Failing Economy
Fast Food Is Now Considered a 'Luxury' Item, Thanks to Bidenflation
Video Captures Illegal Immigrants Throwing Rocks, Sand at Border Patrol Agents
Half of UCLA Med School Students Fail Basic Tests Thanks to DEI Push
Liberal Outlet Censors Sen. John Kennedy's Op-Ed On Protecting Women’s Sports Due To...
Look What's Come Back to Haunt Hunter Biden at His Gun Trial
Opposition to U.S. Steel Deal is Misguided and Counterproductive
Red States Could End Up Paying for Blue States’ Climate Policies
OPINION

Fannie and Freddie Need to Go

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Recent actions against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also produced the standard reaction by GSE apologists. The New York Times’ Joe Nocera was quick to denounce the SEC, arguing that Fannie and Freddie were late to subprime. While I agree that the SEC case is likely a weak one, that, however, is for the opposite reason than Joe supposes.

Advertisement

The reason the case is weak is that anyone with half a brain could read Fannie’s financial disclosures and determine they were doing subprime. Contra to Joe’s false claim that  “Fannie and Freddie got into subprime mortgages, with great trepidation, only in 2005 and 2006,” the companies were both clear before then that they were involved in subprime. Since fact-checking doesn’t seem to be very important with Joe, you can start with my analysis.

The disagreements between Nocera and AEI’s Peter Wallison focus on the GSEs’ mandated housing goals. This is unfortunate and, even more importantly, besides the point. While I find the evidence that the housing goals helped to increase GSE credit risk convincing, I would be the first to say that such evidence is far from conclusive. But so what. Being leveraged over 200-to-1, as was the GSE guarantee business, is a recipe for disaster regardless of credit quality. As even Democrat Phil Angelides admits in today’s WSJ, Fannie and Freddie “had a flawed business model in which profits were privatized and losses socialized.”  That’s the real problem. If Nocera wants to argue that Fannie Mae was no worse than Bear Stearns, then I can live with that as long as we also apply the fate of Bear to Fannie. 

One has to give Nocera some credit. By painting the narrative as Fannie vs. Wall Street, when instead they were close partners, he has helped to preserve the current GSE model. By focusing on “the role of government” in housing, he moves the debate away from the reckless immoral behavior of Fannie and Freddie. He can claim this is about social policy and paint himself as a caring progressive, despite the massive regressive theft that Fannie and Freddie have actually been.

Advertisement

While I agree that having a better picture of the role of the GSE housing goals would be helpful, such an analysis should not delay the obvious: the hybrid GSE model is a failure. Let’s either have them be part of the government or truly be private (and suffer the fate of private failures). Whether Fannie and Freddie rank in one’s top 5 or top 20 causes of the crisis, they should have been ended a long time ago.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos