CBO Garbage
In, Garbage Out
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided material
for a bunch of scary headlines earlier last week when it opined—and then kind
of clawed back—it’s belief, 10 years down the road, Obamacare might cost more
jobs than it generates because some people,
able to acquire low cost health care, could abandon their employment.
The GOP jumped all over it and heavily breathed that it
has been right (no pun intended) about Obamacare.
I try to avoid all Obamacare comments, six weeks
of Fox News on 24-7 (yes, even when my mother in law sleeps she has it on) will
do that to you.
But more specifically, I think it is way too soon to
evaluate the effectiveness of the plan, which has so many moving parts and will
take time to show its success.
Right now, commentary from either side is just so much
hot air and partisan fodder.
But, I also doubt CBO for other reasons and those are
more Fannie Mae centric.
The CBO’s data often sucks and it’s all about their
methodology, which is not consistent with other agency forecasting.
CBO never was a Fannie fan and seemed consistently to
produce contorted reports which always concluded there was no value in its
operations (ditto Freddie) or that the “implicit subsidy” was going to
shareholders and not home buyers (even the Fed disagreed on that), and CBO then
provided analysis to support their opposition, which often was wrong—as it has
been recently.
That’s not changed, even today. The CBO still contorts
its annual discussion of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.
Go back for the last two or three years and review how
CBO employs its “Fair Value” accounting methodology, to suggest that F&F’s
federal “subsidy” actually costs the federal government money and then, when
the two generate earnings in the coming year, the CBO does an about face,
offers an equivalent, “Oh, forget about it” and goes onto report the earnings
over cost as a revenue surplus to the federal government, in effect canceling
what it said several months’ earlier.
As it has in past years after F&F pulls in earning
CBO uses the more accurate cash in and out formula, which the
Office of Management and Budget employs, its F&F errors “misterpear,” as my
grandkids say.
However, if the past two years are a guide, CBO next year
will drag out “Fair Value,” again say F&F cost the government money and
then wait for 2014 corporate earnings to cause them to eat their words, again.
Talk about not being smart enough to come in out of the institutional rain.
So, I am not going to do nip ups at the Congressional
Budget Office Shrine. It’s cracked and much worn.
IMF Bags
Prescient Mortgage Quote
Background: Ed
DeMarco and his Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) posse seemed to believe
they had two missions, the first being statutory, i.e. financial
conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie, and a second agenda, self-identified and
ideological, diminishing the entities, substantially, so any future congressional action would encounter the resistance of
butter to a hot knife.
Part of Ed’s scheme—and all reports have him still inhabiting
a FHFA office—involved spending millions of taxpayers’ dollars (F&F
profits, which if not FHFA claimed would to the
Treasury’s General Fund) on a theoretical “common securitization
platform” (CSP), presumably to replace F&F own very successful platforms
which their teams update regularly.
Critics, including his blog, questioned why FHFA needed to
go to such elaborate and expensive machinations (think Putin and Sochi!), when FHFA could have directed 20 of its
finest employees—without relocating their offices—work with each shop and
extract best thinking at both places.
More questions were raised with what would happen to the “CSP,”
once the FHFA believed it had a working model better than either Fannie’s or
Freddie’s? Who really would own it, who would operate it, and who would pay
whom for the rights?
This still fledgling FHFA hubristic exercise bizarrely
had the agency to rent plush offices in Bethesda, Maryland, build a board
room for the yet to exist “board” and seek a FHFA-blessed corporate exec, who
still hasn’t been identifed let alone named.
One of my favorite industry publications, Inside
Mortgage Finance, scored an interview with a former—still
unidentified—federal regulator, who offered this wonderful opinion, which
should cause new FHFA Director Mel Watt to wonder, “Just, why is my agency still
wasting money on DeMarco’s whimsies.”
Inside
Mortgage Finance, QUOTE OF THE WEEK: “I think everyone from the new team
at FHFA to members of Congress are starting to wake up to the fact that
shutting down the GSEs and replacing them with a new technology platform and
federal agency has huge project failure risk.” – A former banking regulator
speaking to IMF News this week.
OK, I hope IMF's interviewee is correct. I sense he/she is. And life’s
too short to pass up these opportunities, so........I *&%(^%$ TOLD YOU SO!
Senate Banking Players to Watch,
Bob Corker Has His Eyes on Them
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD)
and his ranking R colleague Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), reportedly, soon will make
public the draft mortgage reform bill on which they have been working.
It already was described by some as “Corker
(R-Tenn.)-Warner (D-Va.) lite,” but that didn’t stop Senator Corker,
reportedly, from criticizing his Chairman for being too afraid of “Committee Progressives” to schedule the
C-W bill for a markup.
I am going to take a wild guess at
identifying those who Corker puts in that enlightened cabal; Sherrod Brown
(D-Ohio), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and depending on the
issue and his priorities, Chuck Schumer (D-NY.), and there could be others.
Corker is known for his bravado comments and instant
assessments. But in seeking to abolish F&F, he has little to lose in
Tennessee where no major F&F facilities exists.
Compare that to Mark Warner, who—if he has a
tough GOP general election rival—may have to walk back or swallow his assertions
that his Corker-Warner will “kill Fannie and Freddie,” since that also would
mean his legislative effort could kill jobs for 10,000 Virginia residents
employed by Fannie and Freddie.
That’s bad for F&F and all that
unemployment equally is bad for Northern Virginia food stores, auto dealers,
clothiers, sporting goods, fast food shops, and other community retailers, not
to mention state tax coffers which would lose revenue and have to pay jobless
benefits.
Shutting down two local job-generators—even
one in DC which hires Commonwealth residents-- usually isn’t a “bragging
thing,” when campaigning for office. (Warner’s safer signing petitions to
deport Canadian Justin Bieber.)
On "Pontius" Warner's Hands?
Of course, Corker doesn’t have Warner’s constituents
worry, so he can shout political defiance all he wants. (Did Warner understand that when Corker first got him to sign onto the F&F
proposal?)
Maybe, Tim Johnson just is smarter than
Corker (and Warner) and feels it’s the Chairman’s prerogative to schedule
legislation, especially if his name as well the Committee’s senior R’s name are
the bill.
However, my tantalizing takeaway from Corker’s chagrin and lament is that,
possibly, there may be four Banking Committee Senators, cloaked in Corker’s
“Progressives” epithet, who can swing votes and make differences on Fannie and
Freddie matters and other Banking Committee matters as well.
You always hope the Chairman and his GOP
counterpart are with you. But on Senate Banking it helps to have partners among
the “work horses” in addition to the “show horses’ who reside there.
Maybe Bob Corker fears the needed dray
horses—who Johnson wisely respects--might not want to sign up for the question
generating, pig in a poke legislation Corker and “30-1” Warner, the Senate’s
wealthiest man, are hustling.
From
One of My Favorite People!
One of the smartest mortgage finance professionals I know
offered the following observation, discussing “political bookkeeping,” and the likely
fact Fannie and Freddie—in their final 2013 earnings--will reveal healthy
profits sometime in the next few weeks.
“At the end of this quarter F&F will have more than paid back
the Treasury. After that, they will be building up a notional (though not
formally recognized) kitty against losses. Say they pay $50 billion more than they
drew. Morally, F&F could then have losses of $50 billion before the
taxpayer is out a penny — just as if it had $50 billion in capital. Course,
none of this will be formerly recognized.”
As I remind everyone who asks, Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac are held to a different standard than any other federally chartered
financial institution and-- with the two devoid of political allies--policy
makers treat them as “red headed step children” employing whatever tactics against
the two with which they think they can get away.
The 18 lawsuits (an additional one added last week)
,filed against the Treasury and FHFA over possible expropriation of shareholders
assets, are all about that principle.
What Others Are Saying
Ralph Nader takes on the F&F shareholders
cause.
Community activist John Taylor, writing in The Hill
Newspaper.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/197299-gse-reform-fixing-what-worked#
Daily Kos says Rep. Issa (R-Cal) has ”stay
behind meeting” with IRS IG. (Sounds like old Fannie regulatory screwing to me.)
Rand Paul says Texas could “turn Blue.”
8 comments:
Tim Pagliara stated at the Shareholder Respect conference that Corker did not consult many of the bankers from The Tennessee Bankers Association about his brilliant (in his mind) plan. There is a sense of arrogance about this man and his sidekick Warner that they like to dictate, bully and pander only to the special interest that think like they do, if you can call it that.
His expressed interest with Pagliara regarding his stock price concerns, leads me to think he might have a short interest in the GSEs. It might explain why Corker lost 3 million in investments last year.
Nothing about that pair would surprise and shock me me; but--to be fair--I would apply that comment to a number of Senators and Congressman.
RE:Corker calling Pagliara. A US Senator calling investors encouraging them to sell stock and pfd stock because he does not like the companies. I am not sure why i found this shocking- I must be naive.
In the Howard book, there is discussion of a 2004 HUD Inspector General's report of the then Office of Financial Housing Oversight (OFHEO).
Strong evidence was found that senior OFHEO officials were involved in guerrilla tactics trying to drive down the F&F stock prices, in order to force the companies to pay more attention to their regulator(the guys who were leaking erroneous crap to the press).
Because of internal Bush politics, it came right up to but did not recommend to DOJ criminal
violations.
If there is anything I will have learned from all this is the incredible degree of corruption in politics. Never would I have ever imagined it would be this intense. Very sad.
At dinner last night, a friend was telling me about a Doris Kearns Goodwin new book--"The Bully Pulpit"-- about Teddy Roosevelt and President Taft. He said she describes an era of politics "far scummier" than anything we have now.
Don't know if that summary makes me happy or more sad?
If we ever turn ourselves around, it will be because the United States will have elected a President who has the respect of more than a bare majority of our citizens.
That might not happen until 2020 or 2024, the ways things look now, even with a Hilary win in 2016.
RE: The Bully Pulpit
I drew a very different conclusion from reading Doris Kearns Bully Pulpit. In my view it is an excellent history of a Republican politician TR who was a man of principle, integrity, passion and commitment to public policy reform. He challenged, dealt effectively and defeated the tea party politicians of his day. Yes, the political dialogue of that day was as bad as today, but a great Republican reform leader tore apart the reactionary elements of the Republican party and enjoyed great public support in doing so- a message for todays pygmy politicians.
Anon--I have nto read the book, but it's clear that I owe my friend--and those who read my comments about his statement--a bit of an explanation.
His commentary was about the situation in the states--not with Teddy Roosevelt--which then "appointed" rather than elected Senators and the New York big money commercialists who controlled all of those state legislatures, which meant industrialists got lots of friendly voices and faces in the US Senate, plus whomever had been elected in the House.
Post a Comment