The truth about the economic crisis

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democrats are to blame for the fact that banks lent to unqualified people that could not make their payments. This is the entire reason why we are facing this economic crisis, because the democrats pushed for socialist housing policies which said poor people with bad credit and low incomes should be given home loans that they cannot afford. And now we are answering this crisis with MORE socialism that caused it in the first place. It is pure insanity.

Comments

My question Mr. S, is what did the Bush administration do from September 11th, 2003 (when this article was published) until January 20th, 2009 to help prevent the economy from crashing?
Every attempt to end the practice of lending to unqualified borrowers was blocked by the democrats, and so was every attempt to lower gas prices. What else could the Republicans have done?
Not starting a pointless war in Iraq. Imagine what we could do with an extra 3 trillion ( Last I heard it was going to cost us)     

I think there’s more to this economic crisis then housing loans and gas prices. What about out sourcing jobs, unqualified and greedy CEO’s, S.E.C. failure to regulate, ect.

 The government in general is to blame here not just the democrats. Clinton & Bush both did their part and I don’t think it fair for you to sit here and just blame the party you don’t support.

 

This has nothing to do with the war, nothing to do with outsourcing, nothing to do with illegal immigrants supressing wages, nothing to do with NAFTA, etc. This has everything to do with housing, housing, and housing. Thats all folks. The democrats are to blame because they pushed this socialist "affordable housing" policy that brought down banks and mortgage lenders. I don't know of any so called expert that has blamed this recession on anything else (That being the housing crisis, not demcorats. They conveniently ignore the fact that democrats supported the cause and obstructed regulations).

All the other problems you mentioned have existed, literally, for decades. But only now those things bring our economy down? I do not think so.

Alright, for the sake of pushing this conversation further, I’ll go with housing loans being the only cause and I’ll agree that the dems blocking regulation undoubtedly made the situation worse but what did the Bush administration DO?

Did he ever speak to us about the potential crisis? Other then in 2003, did they propose any other plans?  

The only thing I ever heard was terror terror terror, 9/11, we’re winning the war in Iraq, and global warming isn’t real. Maybe if they fought as hard to stop an economy meltdown as they did to go to war with Iraq’s regime we wouldn't be in as bad of shape as we are now.
I don't think Bush or anyone in his administration knew it would be as bad as it has been. If they were Edgar Cayce, they would have made it a national issue and warned all of us that a major economic crash was coming. But nobody in Bush's administration was psychic.
Then what was the point of the the agency? 

Good question! It is typical of government beauraucrats to ignore impending doom and sugar coat everything, because that is exactly what they did to Bush. They told him everything would be fine, that there would be no economic problems, etc. etc.

There was a financial show from fox news circa 2007 I believe, and every financial analyst was denying that there was any problem. Everything was hunky dory lalala lollipops and rainbows. Exccept one, which basically predicted exactly what was going to happen TO A 'T'. And the rest of them laughed at him and ridiculed him. That was the climate before this all happened. Nobody really saw it coming, and nobody had a clue that it would be so disastrous.

But now that it has happened, we can look back and see what caused it. We know that it was bad loans to unqualified lenders. And the democrats are on record supporting this practice, and Obama is not going to do anything to stop it. He will, in fact, encourage more of it. It is frightening.

Question. Other then tax cuts, what where other ways Republicans said we could rebuild the Economy?

I kinda feel like Republicans are in this lala land where they believe the only way to boost the economy is to lower taxes on business and citizens. Then CEO’s will do their part to bring those jobs back home & hirer more employees because  they all have a sense of duty towards American & citizens will spend spend spend like Regan taught us.

 

In reality, I think people would save their money. Business would keep out sourcing for better and cheaper labor. Then take this in amount income and expand with new technology to lower manual labor or just give CEOs raises…  

I don't think you can solely blame democrats for the economic crisis when it was the Bush administration that signed and passed the foreclosure program in which aided struggling home owners and low-income families to help pay their loans (which they couldn't pay in the first place) back in 2008. If anything, both the republicans and democrats are responsible for this preposition regardless if it was a democratic idea of socialism or not. The republicans obviously endorsed this idea and supported it through a bill. That was a huge step in the deterioration of our economy especially with so many loan agencies going bankrupt due to this preposition. It's common sense to deny people with bad credit a loan that is over 90% of their mortgage payment. Would you also allow a convicted sex offender to open a day care? I doubt it, so why supply the irresponsible with support?

What Bush did merely kicked the issue down the road a little, he was not responsible for the creation of this mess.

No matter how much help these people get they will not be able to pay for their mortgages. Unless of course socialist Obama creates a massive social program to pay the mortgages for them til the end of time. Which is probably what he will do, as he encourages Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give out MORE loans to people that cannot afford them. History repeats itself, but its not supposed to do it this quickly.

This is pure insanity, and its only been four weeks.

Vehicle, I completely agree with you.
I just have to ask, should people be forclosed on or should the government pay their mortgages so that they can stay in their homes? Should the responsible people have to pay for the irresponsible?
I honestly don't really know what we should do to get out of the mess that we're in right now. I don't think it would necessarily be right to kick out the people who we've offered loans to seeing as the government kind of egged them on to take up the offer, but I don't think that the "responsible people" should have to pay for it either, it's not their fault that the government messed up so badly.
Nobody was forced to take a loan they could not afford, they did it of their own free will. Should we respond to poor decision making with rewards like free homes? Because that is what we are doing, rewarding people for making stupid choices and forcing those that made the right choices to pay for it. If that is "fairness", then I must be living in the twilight zone.
It's not fair but what else can we do as this point? Create slums? Put people on the street?
Let them rent apartments like they should have been doing from the begining. If we let them say in the homes by either modifying their rates and monthly payments or just having the government subsidize, it we are digging ourselves an even deeper hole.

It wasn't just their poor choices, it was also the government's.

Yes, agreed. The government should never have forced banks give out subprime loans to unqualified borrowers. But how can we do anything about that when those responsible were just handed over complete control?
The government and these greedy banks are to blame, as well as those who received these loans knowing they could not afford them. It is ashame all the way around.
Banks did not do it out of greed, they did it because of force of government and fear of lawsuits by groups like Obama's ACORN (even Obama himself sued citigroup, forcing them to make bad loans).
Site by DigitalAid | Design by Rhay Design LLC | Powered by Drupal