CWJC
Has Some Critics
Let’s see now, there’s the Obama White House, check;
Corker-Warner (Senate D’s and R’s), check; Johnson-Crapo (Senate D’s and R’s),
check; Hensarling (mostly House R’s), check; and now Maxine Waters (mostly House
D’s), check.
Yep that makes it official, elements of the full political spectrum want to blow up Fannie/Freddie, make off with their resources and assets, and substitute a monstrous melange of new and untried schemes to run the nation’s $10 Trillion primary and secondary mortgage markets, while providing the large financial institutions with ways and means to ravish the new system and satisfy their own selfish financial interests.
Has anyone asked Putin, Assad, Kim Jong-Un, the Syrian
rebels, or the Lord’s Resistance Army, if they want to throw their weight
behind some version of mortgage reform?
This GSE firing squad lineup reminds me of the scene in “Blazing Saddles,” where “Attorney
General Hedley LaMarr” (actor Harvey Korman) is recruiting “bad guys”
to raid the town of Rock Ridge and he enlists every clichéd Hollywood villain
he can gather, cowboy rapists, Klansmen, Nazis, Arab raiders, Mongols, Indians,
and Mexican bandits (“Badges, we don’t need stinkin’ badges”).
Maybe the US Capitol Police can ferret out a Fannie Mae
congressional supporter, in some dark hidden basement in the Longworth or
Cannon House office buildings?
The
Numbers Don’t Matter (gulp)!
That overwhelming CWJC political support doesn’t awe or intimidate.
The way Congress works, no matter how many lemmings hop to follow the loud Grand Poobahs, you’ll still have critics exposing details
of the various bills. Enough of that noise will make an elected official’s excitation
cool and ardor wane.
So, let’s see what some CWJC detractors think.
Josh
Rosner, a managing Director at Graham Fisher who once
co-authored a Fannie-critical book, this week said the following about the new
Senate legislation, which reportedly is filled with statutory language written
by the TBTF institutions.
“Unfortunately, the bill
replaces Fannie and Freddie with an untold number of new government-sponsored
enterprises by handing a massive taxpayer backstop to the nation's largest
banks. These banks will also profit handsomely from large mortgage volumes as a
result of the bill. … Rather than fix these problems, legislators seek to
demolish the current mortgage market and build, from scratch, a new system that
makes things worse. … They put at its center a new regulator, the Federal
Mortgage Insurance Corporation, with a fundamentally conflicted
mission—combining safety and soundness, affordable-housing goals and
consumer protection.
“The bill will have the effect of increasing rather than reducing
the concentration of lending in the hands of a few large banks. Under the
legislation
the government will also sponsor mortgage aggregators, insurance entities and a mutually owned securitization platform. Our largest financial firms will use their public homeownership mission to push for eased lending standards. In good times lenders and their shareholders will enjoy the profits generated by higher mortgage volumes, and in bad times the public will again be stuck holding the bag.”
the government will also sponsor mortgage aggregators, insurance entities and a mutually owned securitization platform. Our largest financial firms will use their public homeownership mission to push for eased lending standards. In good times lenders and their shareholders will enjoy the profits generated by higher mortgage volumes, and in bad times the public will again be stuck holding the bag.”
Come on
Josh, don’t hold back, tell us what you really think? (I love it!)
Hey
Congress, suck on that analysis!
A
published author, Rosner isn’t the lonely voice of some former Fannie Mae
lobbyist, an all-around good guy and handsome Pittsburgh sports fan.
I’ll
take acolytes wherever I can find them. Here’s the Heritage Foundation's review. Heritage is headed by Tea Party darling and former South Carolina GOP
Senator Jim DeMint.
And,
there’s the American Enterprise Institute
(AEI), with angry Ed Pinto writing
that CWJC is dangerous and lame.
The draft bill released on Sunday,
March 16 by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and Ranking
Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) will not protect taxpayers from future
bailouts.
It will replace the implicit federal guarantees enjoyed by Fannie and Freddie with explicit guarantees enjoyed by their successors.
- It
will replace the single-family affordable housing mandates with a new set
of affordable housing provisions that will also lead to debased
underwriting standards.
- It
will raise taxes on the middle class by imposing a new tax on
homeownership that will be used to provide billions annually in
furtherance of a misguided policy to promote risky lending to lower income
homebuyers.
Experience has shown that any bill which includes an
explicit guarantee of an insurance program will fail to protect
taxpayers. The proposed Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation (FMIC)
will be no different.
The bill, as was the case with Fannie and Freddie, assumes
the government would be better at pricing risk than the market. The
examples of the government’s mispricing of insurance risk are legion—flood
insurance, Medicare, and pension guarantees to name but a few. Supporters
point to the 10 percent requirement for private capital. Deposit
insurance is based on a similar concept, yet it has failed not once but
twice. The savings and loan deposit insurance bailout (FSLIC) of the
early-1990s and the FDIC bailout by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in
2008. And lest we forget, Fannie Mae at one point had a similar capital
requirement which was whittled away over time by Congress.
The bill, as was the case with Fannie and Freddie, would
encourage too much of the wrong kind of debt for our economy—debt that bids up
existing housing assets and the land they sit on, creating a temporary wealth
effect and a crowding out of capital investment needed for a productive and
growing economy and jobs growth. Worse, the result will be another
artificial housing boom and consequent bust.
The bill, as was the case with
Fannie and Freddie, would require politicized credit standards--once again
putting lower-income families into housing they can’t afford, with the same
disastrous results.
We also have Mike Whitney’s biting analysis, in the “Smirking Chimp” (which is not a commentary on any of the
congressional sponsors).
The leaders of the U.S. Senate Banking
Committee, Sen. Tim Johnson (D., S.D.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R., Idaho),
released a draft bill on Sunday that would provide explicit government
guarantees on mortgage-backed securities (MBS) generated by privately-owned
banks and financial institutions. The gigantic giveaway to Wall Street would
put US taxpayers on the hook for 90 percent of the losses on toxic MBS the
likes of which crashed the financial system in 2008 plunging the economy into
the deepest slump since the Great Depression. Proponents of the bill say that
new rules by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) –which set
standards for a “qualified mortgage” (QM) – assure that borrowers will be able
to repay their loans thus reducing the chances of a similar meltdown in the
future. However, those QE rules were largely shaped by lobbyists and attorneys
from the banking industry who eviscerated strict underwriting requirements–
like high FICO scores and 20 percent down payments– in order to lend freely to
borrowers who may be less able to repay their loans. Additionally, a
particularly lethal clause has been inserted into the bill that would provide
blanket coverage for all MBS (whether they met the CFPB’s QE standard or not)
in the event of another financial crisis. Here’s the paragraph:
(Read
Whitney’s entire piece, here.)
John Taylor
and the National Community Reinvestment
Coalition threw this brickbat, aimed at the absence of enforceable low
income housing provisions when the J-C bill first was released and which remain
unchanged.
"While we are encouraged that the Johnson-Crapo draft incorporates elements of a proposal put forth by NCRC, and addresses some of the shortcomings in Corker-Warner, the details of the draft text still raise serious concerns. It is critical that housing finance reform ensures access for all creditworthy borrowers, regardless of their income level, geographical location, or race. In its current form, the details of Johnson-Crapo appear to fall short. The draft bill does not include meaningful enforcement and evaluation criteria to ensure access. “
And last—for now—Chuck Gabriel of Capital Alpha Partners excellent review
which gets into the competing accounting issues raised by the CWJC legislation in
“wonky Washington.”
http://www.capalphadc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2014-3-19-CG-Mortgages-The-Score-On-Johnson-Crapo-Fannie-Freddie-Reform.pdf
As my late father loved to say, when something he predicted came to pass, “I told you, didn’t I tell you. I
told you!”
With the Conservative/Teapublicans rising
in Washington, how does this unorthodox federal budget stuffing meet
“GOP code?”
The Waters’ bill does mandate lenders to do affordable
housing, but the details (where “the Devil” hides) won’t necessarily make it
so.
The only way the lending community willingly
does low income mortgage lending is if they are threatened with loss of huge
paydays for not complying; don’t look for “goodness of the heart” or “it’s the
right thing” mentalities from the big money guys. It’s all about the bottom
line.
Carrots are fine but sticks work
better.
Seriously Folks….
In anticipation of next Tuesday’s
knee slapping humor and stealing a joke from the wonderful team at Inside Mortgage Finance, “Did you hear
that FHFA Director Mel Watt just agreed officially to speak?” April Fool!!!
Just teasing, Mr. Director.
Watt is in a tough position, he
can’t get too far away from his White House sponsors, but I have no doubt that
his heart is in the right place when it comes to helping people achieve
homeownership.
I believe he’s sincere when he tells
people that his primary mission is insuring the safety and soundness of Fannie
and Freddie and preserving their value.
Based on that intent, I hope Watt
slow walks or jettisons Ed DeMarco’s legacy common securitization platform, which may cost taxpayers as much
as $300 million plus see a few hundred new employees constructing something
which clearly isn’t in F&F’s best interests because it’s was designed by
its maker (Mr. DeMarco) to serve their successor(s)—and frankly it’s
questionable whether it‘s even needed given the existence of the separate
F&F platforms to which every lender in the nation is a commercial partner
to one or both.
That government giveaway was Ed DeMarco’s personal dream
not his official/statutory agenda, which is why—now that Ed’s gone—I expect he
will join an ideological comfort spot (AEI, Cato, or with one conservative
financial companies outfits in the Southwest).
Senate Markup of CWJC
has been scheduled for April 29, which should give the primary sponsors
sufficient time to make changes and build additional support.
I keep hearing that the big banks
could be shocked to unhappiness by some mystery amendment in the works. That
would be great to see, but talk is cheap.
Worth Watching and Hearing
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/showbiz/2014/03/29/pmt-piers-morgan-final-thoughts.cnn.html
Maloni, 3-30-2014
4 comments:
This is off topic from your last blog but we've discussed it before. Is *this* the real Tim Howard?
http://timhoward717.com/
Thanks in advance. If it is, I'll apologize to some people. If it isn't, I'm going to hound them all.
QO--No it isn't and I alerted the "real Tim Howard" this morning, when I saw that this guy has started a blog.
From what I understand, there is little one can do if your name is hijacked like this.
But the former Fannie Tim Howard has lawyers to advise and protect him, if that's necessary.
Humorous sidebar.
When I called attention that "this Tim ain't that Tim" to the message board where the phony guy has been posting, I was berated because the poser has been offering lots of talk--not sure if it was insight--and readers liked it.
Thanks for the fast response. To be truthful, I've found no fault with the guys analyses but the fact that he's effectively increasing his credibility in this way really grinds me.
I'll point people here for now; we'll get some traction anyway. Maybe you could include another paragraph like the one from 24 Feb?
TIA!
I'll let my friend Tim worry about the imposter, as you noted--so far--the faux Tim's comments don't appear to be harmful.
Post a Comment