DRN Title Search
Register
Log In
Forget your Password?

Home
Directory
Bulletins
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Links
Classifieds
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise
FAQ
Privacy Policy


Source of Title Blog

Real Men Of Genius: Mr. Spending Other People's Money Guy
by Robert Franco | 2008/07/15 |

Stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are down more than 85% in the past year.  As government-sponsored enterprises, there has always been an implicit federal backing.  Recent moves make it look more like an explicit federal guarantee.  The logic is clear - Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee about half of the mortgages in the U.S. market, approximately $5 trillion, and they must not be allowed to fail at any cost.  But what are the real costs and who will bear the burden?

Source of Title Blog ::

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has a plan.  He has asked Congress for the authority to increase the amount of money the Treasury can lend to the GSE's beyond the current $2.25 billion, each.  He would also like to be able to buy equity in the companies, which they do not expect to need, as a "back-stop" to be used on an "as-needed" basis.

Bud Light presents Real Men of Genius.  Today we salute you Mr. Spending Other People's Money Guy.  Your unlimited, federally guaranteed, taxpayer funded gold card will never be declined.  Sure there will be inflation, but you have a six-figure salary working for our Uncle Sam.  You don't have to worry about involuntary down-sizing, or paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline.  So, keep on throwing good money after bad - it's not your money.  You have nothing to fear Mr. Spending Other People's Money Guy.

Despite the fact that Fannie Mae has raised more than $14 billion in new capital since November, and  Freddie Mac's claim that they "are adequately capitalized, both organizations are in dire straights, according to an article on Bloomberg.com.

Freddie Mac is already insolvent under fair value accounting rules, and Fannie Mae is likely to follow, former St. Louis Federal Reserve President William Poole said in a recent interview. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac raised a combined $20 billion since December to cover losses of more than $11 billion generated since the credit crisis began last year.

This is a game of "borrowing short" and "lending long."  It is a sophisticated Ponzi Scheme that can't go on forever.  When the short supply of money is interrupted, it becomes more difficult to meet long-term obligations. This is what the government is attempting to avoid by putting in place access to more short term capital.

Making cheap money available to the mortgage market has helped spur growth in our economy, but it has also created a mess that is likely too large for the government to handle.  The Bear Stearns bailout transferred billions of dollars of risk from the private sector to the government, and ultimately to the taxpayers.  Now, the expansion of the GSE's will do more of the same.

An article on Financial Times.com, Goodbye Capitalism, explains that the government is stepping in to prevent capitalism from operating efficiently.

In a capitalist economy, losers are expected to take losses and winners to gain. Private enterprise is best able to allocate capital efficiently and, where it fails to do so, markets make adjustments and capital is reallocated to efficient users. This basic tenet supports good and productive assets moving from the hands of weak players to stronger. Where this is not possible, the US system gives the government a hand in fostering that move through an efficient process called bankruptcy or reorganisation.

...

Our elected officials have repeatedly demonstrated that even equity holders, who are supposed to have the most subordinated claims on assets, cannot be allowed to take losses and instead believe we should all communally share in losses that result from poor allocation and risk management decisions.

...

Given the choices we have seen from officials, who obviously have little faith in the ability of capital markets or our system of law, we will see the continued nationalisation of bad assets, placing the burden on the shoulders of the already overburdened American taxpayer.

This causes inflation and as the dollar declines against foreign currencies, even our largest American companies are subject to cheap buyouts by foreign investors.  Anheuser Busch recently announced that it is being purchased by InBev, the Belgian brewer of Becks and Stella Artois.  Many American companies are seeing stock prices drop and the weak dollar makes them all the more attractive to foreign investors.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down more than 21% from its high in October.

So, crack open an ice cold Bud Light, Mr. Spending Other People's Money Guy, while it is still brewed in the great U.S. of A.  Or, maybe you prefer pricey imports to the golden elixir from Ft. Collins, Colorado .  After all, you can just print more money when you need it.  So keep those printing presses running, O' Master Money Maker.  Your going to be working over-time.

Some experts question whether we need Fannie or Freddie at all, according to an article on Forbes.com

Despite the worry that the companies are too big to fail, Martin Hutchinson and Lauren Silva at Breakingviews.com suggest that they could be killed off, albeit slowly, by simply running them into the ground through higher fees to customers and reduced pay to their workers.

"Market forces probably would replace them within five years," they write, as banks that were pushed out of the mortgage securitization market by the Fannie Freddie monopoly come back. According to Hutchinson and Silva: "Politically it is an unlikely outcome, but by 2013 or so, it could be possible to close Fannie and Freddie - at least to new business - with scarcely a ripple."

If the private sector could take over the secondary market, maybe it is time to consider phasing out the mortgage giants before it pulls down our entire economy.  At the very least, we need to keep the risk where it belongs and not on the taxpayers. 

This Bud's for you, Mr. Spending Other People's Money Guy.  Most taxpayers feel they are already overburdened, but you don't think so.  Truly an evolutionary, a forward-thinker, a man with a plan, you think that everyone should shoulder the burden of the failing private companies that loaned money to every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a pulse.  If they could fog a mirror, you can buy their bad debt.  Why?  Because you don't believe in Capitalism.  So this Bud's for you, Mr. Spending Other People's Money Guy.... we hope you choke on it.

If you aren't familiar with the "Real Men of Genius" series of commercials, here is a sample for you.

We do have to do something about our financial market problems, but the answer isn't throwing good money after bad or shifting the risk of bad loans to the taxpayers. Propping up a broken system isn't going to cure the problems. The bankruptcy laws need to be changed to allow for relief from residential mortgage debt and we need to implement new lending guidelines to prevent this from reoccurring.

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE




Rating: 

Categories: Mortgage Industry

1601 words | 2515 views | 3 comments | log in or register to post a comment


ROTFLMAO!

I love the Bud Light bit, Rob!  The theme of your post had me in stitches!

This subject matter is nothing to laugh at, though.  I agree, the Feds need to just step back and let the market correct itself.  Let those who assumed the risks take the losses instead of leaving hardworking, taxpaying Americans holding the bag.

 
by Scott Perry | 2008/07/15 | log in or register to post a reply

Men of Genius

Nicely written Robert. 

We are in quite a pickle with the meltdown from the sub-prime mess.  Fannie and Freddie account for 5 trillion of the 12 trillion U.S. mortgage market and account for nearly 2/3 of the new mortgages made this year as the private lenders have cut their lending.

It has been well accepted by investors that the GSAs from the beginning would be explicitly guaranteed by the government rather than just the implied guarantee in the charters.

While I agree that they may need to die off at some point, I don't know that a natural death is the way to go with unnatural entities like the GSAs.  The shareholders are going to take a bath if, and when the government takes an equity stake.  It will dilute the value of the existing shares in much the same way that occurred with the shares of Bear Stearn.

While we can all agree that the GSAs have never been true representations of capitalism, they are here and we have to deal with them as they stand.  It is too late in the game to pretend they do not exist.  I am no economist, but I do think the Feds are doing about the best that can be done with the situation they face.  Shareholders take a loss, the packages loss value and the taxpayers that have taken advantage of the artificially low interest rates take a hit.

It all is lousy, but the only thing we can do at this point is deal with it.

 

 

 
by Douglas Gallant | 2008/07/15 | log in or register to post a reply

The GSEs have always served a valid purpose

I don't think we should just pull the plug on the GSE's and I do believe that we could never let them fail.  However, I think we need to look at reducing their role in the secondary market.  Greenspan warned us a couple of years ago about the consequences of a failure by Fannie or Freddie.  The problem is that if we allow the Treasury to have a blank check to loan them more money and permit the Treasury to buy equity in them, we are allowing them to grow even larger.  The larger they are, the more difficult it would be to bail them out in the future.

I read that Fannie and Freddie have been responsible for keeping mortgage rates lower than they would be otherwise, by about 2%.  It seems to me that the market could bear a 2% increase in mortgage rates, in fact - I think that such an increase is necessary.  One of the problems we have is that with all the bad loans out there, Fannie and Freddie will have to pay a higher rate for their short term capital and that will undoubtably mean higher rates anyway.

One suggestion I saw was to gradually raise the fees they charge to make the private sector more appealing over time and slowly ween ourselves off our dependence on the GSEs.  They would still be able to operate, but we could get their size down a bit, where any problems would be more manageable.  If the private sector really can pick up the slack, maybe we could eventually phase them out completely, but I don't think that is a necessity.

The most important thing is that they remain stable for now.  Allowing them access to more capital so they can buy up sub-prime garbage is just going to shift the risk to the taxpayers.  Even though every equity or debt offering of Fannie and Freddie explicitly states that these “are not guaranteed by the US and do not constitute an obligation of the US or any agency or instrumentality thereof other than” of Fannie or Freddie, it has become clear that the US does intend to guarantee them. 

And, regarding the loss to shareholders, they are already taking a bath.  Many of the savvy investors are shorting Fannie and Freddie stock.  Unfortunately, the government's plan is bailing out those who bought Fannie and Freddie debt and the shareholders are really taking a beating.  I don't think that continuing the cycle is helping the shareholders much.  Allowing the GSE's to take on more debt is just creating more risk for shareholders.

 
by Robert Franco | 2008/07/16 | log in or register to post a reply
Source of Title Blog

Robert A. FrancoThe focus of this blog will be on sharing my thoughts and concerns related to the small title agents and abstractors. The industry has changed dramatically over the past ten years and I believe that we are just seeing the beginning. As the evolution continues, what will become of the many small independent title professionals who have long been the cornerstone of the industry?

Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE

 

Links

Recommended Blogs Recommended Posts Source of Title Services
Recent Comments

I think there is a problem with doing this. R.C. 5302.23(B)(6) states as follows:"A fee simple title...
by Keith Barton
Appreciate the update Robert. I am curious if there was any discussion of GIS and Parcel IDs. I was ...
by Jeanine Johnson
I am looking for someone in CA to help...
by Kathy Stewart
I am not independent, but I am a title abstractor for a small law firm in NC that deals with Real Es...
by Ashley Bonds
I've thought further of who will be affected by block chain and it won't just be lawyers, title sear...
by Carol Clark
I recently attempted to have a title company examiner sign and notarize (acknowledgement of her sign...
by DANDAN ZHU
 Thank you for the reminder to check for that notation about homestead exemption ending on the ...
by stephen willard
Pat was one of the sweetest men I've ever had the pleasure of knowing.  At every conference he ...
by Douglas Gallant
Categories

 
© 2020, Source of Title.