Stop Mortgage Investor Bailouts

An open letter to Occupy Wall Street


It really is frustrating when banks, institutional investors, and hedge funds make money off of taxpayer bailouts of the financial industry. That's a travesty well worth skipping a week's worth of showers for. Unfortunately, we cannot roll back time to reverse the TARP bailout.

We can, however, stop a bailout going on right now: taxpayer money flowing through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to mortgage investors to ensure they don't suffer losses from families defaulting on mortgage payments.

Three years ago, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson coordinated a SWAT-like invasion of Fannie and Freddie's corporate offices, taking the government-sponsored enterprises (GSE) into federal control. Since then the Federal Housing Finance Agency has been pulling the GSE's strings behind the scenes, and the Treasury Department has used them to funnel $169 billion of taxpayer money to mortgage investors.

Since 40 percent of taxes are paid by the top 1 percent, Occupy Wall Street protestors can be satisfied knowing that at least some of the wealth of the elite has been wasted on this bailout—but since a lot of those getting this money are themselves most likely in at least the top 10 percent, that $169 billion bailout ends up flowing right back to them.

But try putting that on a sign.

These mortgage investors had paid fees to Fannie and Freddie to guarantee payment on the mortgage-backed securities they had invested in, but nowhere in their contracts were they promised that the government itself would step in to cover the guarantees if Fannie and Freddie ran out of money. Nevertheless, that is what the government has done—all under the guise of the need to protect the housing market. (If you're reading this on a generator-powered MacBook Air in Liberty Square, click here for more details on how this all works.)

Yet it turns out that keeping Fannie and Freddie perpetually in federal conservatorship is hurting the housing market.

The future housing market cannot depend on taxpayer guarantees of financial industry investment in mortgages. But right now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are keeping alternative housing finance systems from emerging by monopolizing the mortgage market. In fiscal year 2011, Fannie, Freddie, and the Federal Housing Administration bought or guaranteed 95 percent of new mortgages.

Yes, 95 percent. Every one of those mortgages is backed by taxpayer guarantees.

The reason is because Fannie and Freddie charge way below what private mortgage insurers would demand to insure mortgage investment. And that is basically the point, because if they charged the market rate there wouldn't be a need for Fannie and Freddie. The idea is that more people will invest in mortgages, making it easier to get a mortgage, if investors can get cheaper guarantees. The nature of the GSEs is to create subsidized risk at the expense of taxpayer funded bailouts.

Here is how out of whack the situation is: Fannie and Freddie currently charge around 0.25 percent of what investors make from buying mortgage-backed securities. The Congressional Budget Office suggests that the GSEs should really be charging 4.4 percent.

That may or may not be good material for a wonky sign, but it is a seriously distorted subsidy for the financial industry. It means that instead of collecting $12.5 billion for investor insurance on the GSE's $5 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, they should have $220 billion. That should inspire some rage among protestors.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency finally hinted last month that it will consider raising the g-fee, but likely no higher than doubling the current rate. Which would mean that the GSEs would still be significantly undercharging the financial industry for a guarantee that the taxpayers will cover their investments.

So what can we do about this? There are lots of proposals for how to dissolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a responsible way. The best method would be to raise the fee charged for guaranteeing mortgage investments steadily over five years to a level where no one wants to do business with Fannie and Freddie anymore, while at the same time forcing the GSEs to limit their business to smaller and smaller sized mortgages. After all, why should someone buying a $500,000 home need federal financing?

But even if you believe the government should help poor people become homeowners, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a terrible way to do it. Public risk for private profit is not good public policy—which I think is the text on a protestor sign somewhere in lower Manhattan. It is one of the roots of the subprime crisis and subequent financial collapse. At most, subsidies for low-income families should be part of the budget and made transparent for debate—they shouldn't distort financial behavior and bail out risky investment failures.

So why haven't we done anything about this yet? Again, Fannie and Freddie were taken over three years ago. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have had an opportunity to address the failure of the GSE model. The Treasury Department even issued a White Paper in February this year arguing we do not need Fannie and Freddie to support the American housing industry.

Yet nothing has happened.

The Democrat-led Congress from 2009-2010 talked a lot about the financial crisis and spent a year debating reforms for Wall Street, but in the end passed the Dodd-Frank Act, which left in place the bailout for mortgage investors and tens of billions flowing from taxpayers to the financial industry. The Republicans have now had almost a year to address the GSE failure through their control of the House of Representatives, but aside from a handful of bills passed out of a House subcommittee this year, Congress has chosen to let Fannie and Freddie continue to subsidize mortgage investment risk with taxpayer funded guarantees.

This failure of leadership should inspire an Occupy Washington movement demanding that Fannie and Freddie be dissolved and taxpayer funded bailouts and guarantees for mortgage investors be stopped. We will not have a housing recovery until the GSEs are out of the way.

The Tea Party movement started with CNBC's Rick Santelli's rant about taxpayer funded mortgage modifications for delinquent borrowers. Occupy Wall Street can turn its fury on the same issue and possibly inspire our elected leaders to finally have the courage to end the policies that are keeping the American housing market down.

Anthony Randazzo is director of economic research at the Reason Foundation.

NEXT: North Koreans Desperately Wish They Were in the 99 Percent

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Occupy Wall Street can turn its furry on the same issue

    At least those who don't have it shaved.

    1. I think they were talking about Geithner. TMI, if you ask me.

  2. Occupying wall street is not the answer. What needs to happen is to get rid of the federal reserve. Balance the budget. Actually not just balance the budget but get rid of our debt but the people in washington really don't care.

    They are trying to destroy the old america and create something else.

    1. What is needed is a bout of stagflation and a plunge in the value of the dollar.

  3. "But even if you believe the government should help poor people become homeowners,...."
    I don't!

  4. The situation with with the GSE's is an acute look at what is wrong with the leadership in the House and the minority leadership in the Senate. Though we have added nearly 90 tea partiers to the Congress the leadership is entrenched in 'old ideas and old ways' to conduct business. They are incapable of letting go of their old playground and play friends. I have read where the 'newbies' have tried repeatedly to get these things in the hopper but Boehner and McConnell tell them to be patient and be quiet. It is not just the dems that need to be put out but the old school 'death by a thousand cuts' need to go.

  5. Good article. I finally understand. Thanks.

  6. Is what torques me about the GSEs is that if they were like private institutions, they would have gone the way of Enron and WorldCom. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used fraudulent accounting practices to hide their situation for years. Yet, instead of being investigated for accounting fraud, taxpayer dollars are being used to guarantee mortgages made by individuals the taxpayers didn't elect. Talk about moral hazard. Isn't that basically taxation without representation? Why we haven't we ousted every single political figure in office that hasn't fought against the GSEs is a mystery to me.

    1. Fannie and Freddie advertised for years on NPR. We don't go after companies which support NPR.

      1. David H Koch is a big NOVA contributor. Doesn't seem to buy him a lot of goodwill.

    2. And don't forget that while they were cooking the books, Harrold Rains and Jamie Gorelick received millions in bonuses.

      Yeah, the same Jamie Gorelick who was behind the "wall of separation" between the CIA and FBI in regards to terrorist suspects before 9/11.

      If Jamie Gorelick is involved in ANYTHING you know government corruption and incompetence are close behind.

      1. I was just reading about Gorelick yesterday, and if there ever was a "why the fuck does this person still have a job in Washington?" competition Gorelick would win in a landslide.

        She is tits-deep in two of the biggest national catastrophes to befall the US in the last decade. And yet she's now a millionaire living off of bonuses from FM&FM;.


        Oh, and to add insult to injury, she's currently trying to get BP weaseled out of any penalties for the Gulf Spill.

        If she wasn't a real person no one would believe you if you made her up. Unreal.

  7. La La La I can't hear you!

  8. In an open letter to Occupy Wall Street...

    How is this even possible? What is their address? Who is their leader? Does he read this letter, one line at a time, to a monotonous chorus? Do they giggle?

    1. Address:

      Useful Idiots
      Moron Central Station
      New York, NY 00000

      1. Noted!


  9. In an open letter to all 5 people who will ever read this comment, Mr. Mark explains why OWS protestors should STFU and go get a clue before protesting anything.

    1. Badda bing...
    2. ...badda boom.

  10. 'we cannot roll back time to reverse the TARP bailout'...true, but we can ask for our money back

  11. hello,welcome to http://www.luckygrip. com,i hope everyone will more like them because of there have more nice top goods and cheaper price in there,thanks

  12. My website is in the exact same area of interest as yours and my visitors would truly benefit from a lot of the information you present here. Please let me know if this alright with you. Cheers!

  13. just that it "was a business decision"! Guess it's a little too late to send this article along to the HR Dept. or that manager to any good... OOPS!

  14. My parents have recently taken out a reverse mortgage - At first I thought it was a horrible idea since we have had the home in our family now for many generations but after speaking to my lender they explained that my parents home be mine as long as I can pay off anything that the borrow. Im calculating that the home appreciation alone should cover over the interest costs so it is essentially a free loan for them - I'm glad that they now have more money for their http://www.reversemortgagelend.....gage-loan/ http://www.reversemortgagelend.....-and-cons/

  15. Reverse mortgages are unique loans that give seniors the opportunity to withdraw a portion of their home equity and defer payment until their home is sold.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.