Trump’s Texas Deal Dilemma
It’s Not Islamophobia, It’s Islamo-I’m-Sick-of-Hearing-About-It
CNN Proves False Narratives Are a Network Feature; WaPo Upset Photographers It Does...
Bombshell Federal Lawsuit Says Teachers Abused Students for Decades in Small Wisconsin Sch...
What If Those Iranian Bombs Had Nuclear Warheads
Between a Mullah and a Hard Place
Obama's Race-Hustling Eulogy at a Race Hustler's Funeral
The Religious, the Secular and the Truth
Democrats’ Latest Sacrificial Pawns
If Virginia Is for Lovers, There Is No Place for Tyrants
Florida Teens Accused of Plotting to Kill Classmate to Resurrect Sandy Hook Shooter
Farm Labor Company Operator Pleads Guilty to RICO Charge in Worker Exploitation Case
Venezuelan Man Accused of Assaulting Federal Agent, Grabbing Gun During Arrest in Michigan
This Major Insurance Company Agreed to Pay $117M Over Allegedly Overcharging Medicare for...
James Carville Admits He Has 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' — Says He Prays for...
OPINION

The Paths to Mortgage Finance Reform and Their Budgetary Implications

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
The Paths to Mortgage Finance Reform and Their Budgetary Implications

The passage of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act in July of 2008 expanded the federal government’s authority to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. As exercised, under the conservatorship the government secured the right to stock warrants worth 79.9% of the company as well as a ten percent dividend on its gross investment. The existing shareholders kept the other 20.1%.

Advertisement

However, the terms of the conservatorship were repeatedly amended. As the two GSEs returned to profitability, the government amended the conservatorship to lay claim to the entire net worth of the two government-sponsored enterprises, which it swept into Treasury’s coffers each quarter. This move effectively froze out the non-government shareholders from any residual profits.

It also allowed the federal government to report sharply lower deficits than would have otherwise been the case. As of 2014 the government had recouped its core $187.5 billion investment in the two and Congress is now contemplating major reforms of the mortgage finance sector.

The current reform plan that has garnered bipartisan support, the one proposed by Senators Tim Johnson and Mike Crapo, would wind down Fannie and Freddie and replace them with new entities. In doing so it would also largely codify the Treasury’s zeroing out of Fannie and Freddie’s private shareholders.

In order to allow the new entities to begin with a fresh balance sheet, the legislation would have the federal government explicitly guarantee the $5.2 trillion of debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While a booming economy could gradually reduce that figure with few untoward consequences for the government, if the housing market were to have another swoon, the government would undoubtedly find itself having to cover some portion of this debt.

Advertisement

Explicitly guaranteeing the debt incurred by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac represents an unprecedented step for the government, and something the Treasury previously went to some lengths to avoid. Such an explicit guarantee is also contrary to long existing statute, which even today denies creditors any right to taxpayer backing. Neither the public assumption of all GSE debt nor the effective confiscation of the private shareholders’ GSE stock send an affirming signal to private investment.

Reform of the U.S. housing market is past due: if we hope to rebuild our mortgage finance system on a foundation of private capital, then property and contractual rights must be respected.

Read the Full Working Paper


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement