Summer Fun!
I still am pissed at the wobbly and disingenuous Obama
housing performance the past few days.
And my next few blogs will reflect that emotion and
anger, but this came to me today from another longtime friend who has fought
many F&F battles and I thought it was wonderfully humorous and too logical,
whether his numbers add up or not.
If you can’t laugh at some of these political hijinks,
you’re dead from the neck up. So, I’ll save my vitriol for another day.
With the author’s explicit permission, I want to share
his meanderings with you.
A
Summer Daydream and Dialogue
August
is a good time for mental relaxation and exercise. And opening the windows at night, on
vacation, for cool night air.
Which
leaves one time for chimerical thoughts that have little grounding in reality.
Let's
try this mental exercise--just for fun.
Freddie
and Fannie just had a quarterly profit run rate, annualized, of $60B based on
2Q. This won't keep up for a host of
reasons, including the ending of the refit boom and the shrinking of the
retained portfolios. (At the same time
though, g fees will continue to rise.)
So let's say the companies make a much smaller amount quarterly and
annually. Call it not $60B, but half
that--$30B. Give it a P/E
multiple--let's say 9, which is uber-conservative for steady, utility stocks
(no more "growth stock" Fannie and Freddie--that was clearly an
error.) That gives us a total
capitalization of the two at 9x$30B, or:
$270
billion.
Bear
with me.
Yes,
I know, the political current thinking is they ain't going back to anything
that they were. (This is an August
mental exercise only, not an expression of any current Washington
reality.)
But
here goes: the Feds, the US taxpayers,
us folks, are about to get their money back, early in 2014 ($187B), and they
(us) will STILL have a claim on 80% common stock warrants of the two. This means, again just for fun, that if the
government spun the companies back out, a la AIG, taxpayers could have a claim
on 80% of $270B, or:
$216
billion.
Which
means taxpayers would receive, all in, $187B plus $216B, or over $400B.
"It's
not going to happen, Padre."
Fine,
fine. But Washington policy decisions
have costs. And this one,
apparently--the decision to snuff bad Fannie and Freddie, will end up
"costing" we the taxpayers $216B.
Of foregone money we could have had in our hands. Real money.
"They're
bad. We have to kill them."
Why
are they bad now? They need reform, of
course. And real shrinkage. But they still had lower default and
delinquency rates than Wall Street or the prime market overall, all through the
downturn.
"Well,
among other reasons Padre, because they cost us $187B. Maybe you forgot that."
Well
fine. But killing them will cost us
$216B. Which is larger than the original
losses that made them "bad."
"You
know, you just don't get it. And
besides, it's too late. We're gonna kill
'em. You're not grounded in
reality."
Don't
I know that. I live inside the Beltway,
after all.
Key
the birds calling outside the vacation open window. It's time for a swim, following baseball
scores. Surf fishing?
This
is only an illustration of cost/benefit thinking. Was the Iraq invasion worth it? Maybe.
Setting aside the human lives, was it worth an expenditure of $1.5
Trillion? It's a good question--what
else could the US have done with that money?
Is
killing Fannie and Freddie worth it?
Could be. But is it worth $216
billion of real money?
Don't
ask me. I'm on vacation.
The only thing I’ll add to my friend’s wonderful
fantasy is that the real cost will be far greater when a politically riven
Congress tries to implement its “square peg in a round hole” untested mortgage
finance model, and scrambling all of the mortgage finance eggs, while the President
wistfully talks about all of the new family formations who will need housing.
The F&F fix is simple, examine that thoroughly before junking the whole
model.
Maloni,
8-8-2013
(I am exercising my blogger's prerogative by adding, post facto, a link to a well argued piece on the implications of the President's Phoenix speech. I am doing so because, it was sent to me by the guy whose thought piece is above and the article makes a lot of points I've made previously. The first 70 or so of those who read the initial blog didn't have access to this link.)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ideology-drives-debate-on-mortgage-reform-2013-08-08?siteid=yhoof2
(I am exercising my blogger's prerogative by adding, post facto, a link to a well argued piece on the implications of the President's Phoenix speech. I am doing so because, it was sent to me by the guy whose thought piece is above and the article makes a lot of points I've made previously. The first 70 or so of those who read the initial blog didn't have access to this link.)
4 comments:
This is not a fantasy, it is simple financial arithmetic!
I cannot understand why the Obama Admin seems to be brain dead when it comes to financial markets reform.
Freddie and Fannie are the most successful government businesses in existence. Why kill them?
Yes, reform them and regulate them properly and protect the fixed rate mortgage.
They are risking financial Armageddon by trying to completely overhaul something that is getting the job done. It is clear that the risk profile of their assets is being controlled and is of very high quality. Now that it is known how substantial losses will be during a housing crisis it makes sense to increase their capital ratios in the future to account for black swan events. Although the amount of capital should reflect the risk profile of their assets as well so that they are not over reserving on their balance sheets. Then it is simply a matter of increasing the G fees to a level that compensates for the risk of the loans.
Anonymous 1 and 2, first thanks for reading and commenting, but you are being "logical" in an arena where little is allowed or exists.
Too many people--in both parties--seem invested in the "big lie," which casts Fannie and Freddie as wrong doers.
As I suggested, maybe the R's just will throw sand in the legislative gears and learn to live with F&F for a bit longer.
I've said it once and I will again: It's not FnF the GOP has a problem with, per se, it's their being a metaphor for... I need a word here ... their being a tool of those in govt who would declare that 65% of FnF mortgages go to the underprivileged.
Have them rent! -Wallison
Post a Comment