Fannie
and Freddie as Utilities
Some “F&F resurrection” suggestions emerged from the
“inside the Beltway” ideas cauldron this past week, not surprising in their
concept but for their sources.
I’ve written before that I have a lot of respect for
Karen Shaw Petrou, who along with husband Basil, runs DC’s Financial Analytics Company
and long has represented bank clients.
Over the years, I’ve disagreed with some of her/their
positions, but last week Karen Petrou penned a piece which I think is the kind of pragmatic, clear
headed approach to Fannie-Freddie mortgage finance issues that seldom surfaces,
at least from those not labeled “F-F fans.”
Petrou endorsed converting Fannie and Freddie into government sponsored “utilities,”
although she’s not the first one to offer that thinking.
Here is a link to KSP’s report in which she writes about
this possible approach.
Now the Devil always is in the details when these kinds
of suggestions pop up. But when someone with Petrou’s congressional bank cred
and gravitas advocates a solution, it could attract those who knee jerk
oppose anything which keeps Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac alive (which is why some
years ago, I suggested the GSEs be renamed Thing
1 and Thing 2).
Presumably, the new “F&F utilities” would have ties
to the federal government, be regulated as to prices they charge and revenue
they can generate, but still would be permitted to respond to market demand and
provide affordable mortgage finance throughout the nation, utilizing common
products and prices, facilitating standardization and securitization.
Again, KSP isn’t trailblazing here, but she also doesn’t
start with “destroy the GSEs.”
What I like most about Karen Petrou’s approach is that
she acknowledges the folly of
disrupting the US mortgage finance system, with some questionable behemoth
replacement substitute. Her inherent disdain reflects her veteran sense that
whatever Congress views as the F&F successor will have significant negative
financial and systemic costs, as well as jeopardizing the fixed rate mortgage
which Americans desire and have come to expect.
Petrou is clear headed and non-emotional in discussing
GSE alternatives.
Left unsaid—which is not really her job—is that traditional utilities have true private
shareholders. This model must have that characteristic, too, if working capital
is to come from outside the government.
Petrou’s F&F should primarily securitize but might need to hold some
loans in portfolio especially if the latter don’t lend themselves to easy securitization.
Constructively recreating F&F has
virtues, unless the “Kongressional Keystone Kops” just
opt to punish or be punitive. That approach would be as much a non-starter as
the SBC favoring Senate CorkerWarner-JohnsonCrapo (CWJC) legislation.
As a knowledgeable friend described
the virtue of the “utility” model-- with FF having access to capital, private
shareholders, and utility regulation-- “The benefits
of lower returns on capital (through regulated pricing), less required capital,
less intrusive regulation and access to a federal backstop all would flow
through to homebuyers. The trick will be getting the balance right.
Too low a permitted return and investors won't put up the capital for these
"utilities;" too little capital or regulation and the risk to the
taxpayer goes up.”
Use F&F Earnings to Recapitalize
The other positive suggestion came in
an American
Banker article from University
of Maryland Business School professor, Clifford
Rossi.
Rossi says forget legislation, the answer is for the
Obama Admin to employ its existing regulatory authority to recapitalize F&F
and stop taking all of their earnings. (Poor
guy is being logical, but he is trumpeting what I said months ago.)
Rossi echoes the
incompetence of the legislators and the breakdown of the legislative process in
arguing that this major change should be
done via regulation, since the Hill can’t agree on much and its paralysis
has a cost.
When it comes to
F&F, the difficulty is instituting any agreed upon changes—given how riven
the Congress is—which is why Rossi calls for the WH to use its embedded authority to declare F&F
have sufficiently repaid the Treasury and how best to get them back to work.
Beyond the “stop the
sweep and use their earnings to recapitalize,” Terrapin prof Rossi doesn’t
describe what F&F’s relationship to the government would be. That would be
crucial especially when they enter the debt markets.
Tim
Howard
Judge Margaret Sweeney has more on her
mind, i.e. Lamberth decision and DOJ agitation for her to follow Lamberth’s
lead, than Tim Howard (former Fannie CFO, not the blogger with that nom de
plume), but she still hasn’t ruled on letting plaintiff Fairholme retain Tim as a consultant, an action
to which the government objected.
The government argued that Howard
might abuse the information he peruses via “discovery.” But Howard—if
hired—would be bound by the same Sweeney “discovery” rules and sanctions as all
other Fairholme employees and lawyers.
DOJ’s position really screams of
discrimination because Howard toiled at Fannie and has spoken out that the
former Fannie regulators erred (how about acted dastardly and with venom) in
their Fannie treatment and their false claim that he and others violated
securities laws, an allegation later thrown out by a federal court judge in
2012.
(Sweeney disappoints; see new note at the, added 10-15-2014.)
AIG and
Fannie and Freddie
Even though the F&F and AIG cases
have some duplication among counsel and common use of the phrase “takings,”
they are different, since the institutions are different.
AIG’s lawyer, David Boies, certainly
is eliciting some embarrassing (for them) responses from Hank Paulson and Tim
Geithner over the government’s rationale in taking over the AIG insurance
company, re impact on investors and possibly vindictive thinking which
influenced their decisions.
Given an opportunity—c’mon Judge
Sweeney, don’t stop now-- the public should expect to see more of that and more
tortured government rationales when/if Ted Olson—Perry Capital’s lead attorney--gets
to question Geithner, former FHFA Director Ed DeMarco, current Treasury
Secretary Jack Lew and maybe Bernanke and/or Paulson.
If Hank Paulson’s book notes—which
surfaced during the AIG hearing and
crowed over his “nationalization of Fannie and Freddie”-- indicate that he and
other federal officials publicly said one thing, but behind the scenes acted
with intent to do something harmful and
destruction, those could be an ugly set of court deliberations. That especially
would be the case when most in Congress thought they were voting to “conserve”
F&F for future revival and operations.
With regard to the case before
Sweeney, the F&F conservator, FHFA—which I described last week’s as “Tonto”
to the Treasury’s Lone Ranger”-- reportedly has very few records of its
deliberations, especially on the “third amendment,” which Treasury seemed to
drive and control.
So, who in the Administration was controlling
what and what were their objectives when all of F&F’s earnings were
aggrandized?
Lamberth and the Appeals Court
Below is my comment to a friend when he observed that
Judge Lamberth’s decision was not supported by the underlying statute and that
Lamberth ignored certain protocols.
“Unfortunately, this just causes me civic heartache, because if
Lamberth can rule this way--given what we all perceive are his ‘mistakes’--why
should we have faith that the appeals court will rule differently?”
(The lawyers among you will know that there
are at least two more levels of appeal, if the Appeals Court doesn’t overturn
Lamberth.)
Fiderer
article
Below is a link to David Fiderer’s very thoughtful
article on structural flaws in the private label mortgage backed securities
market (PLS), which is what loan securitization is called when the guarantors are not
Fannie and Freddie and also a scheme inherent in most of the anti-GSE
legislation in Washington.
In 2005-2007, when the banks and the investment banks
last tried this business venture in huge volume, they unleased on the world
more than $2 Trillion in soon-to-fail, poorly underwritten and scandalously
rated mortgage backed bonds (you know,
all of the stuff the GOP seems to ignore), which failed in numbers and
percentages far greater than anything, in the same era, which had F&F’s
stamp on them.
The reason why the big banks and their allies were hot
for the SBC CWJC bill was because it provided government insurance for those
private label MBS losses.
Yet for policy makers, Fiderer’s well-argued column is
what they need to understand when they attempt to throw sand in the gears of
the US mortgage market, which heavily relies on loans being turned into bonds
so that investors—not limited insured bank deposits—finance the bulk of
America’s future homeowners.
Panetta
on Obama
In his new book, the
portrait former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (and also former CIA head)
sketches of Obama sometimes makes the President look more like a college
professor than a chief executive (sound familiar?).
“He
relies on the logic of his presentation, with the hope that ultimately people
will embrace that logic and then do what's right. You know what? In 50 years,
my experience is logic doesn't work in Washington. You gotta basically go after
people and make them understand what they have to do. And that means you create
a war room. You go after votes. You push people."
Carter on Obama (Ouch!)
Former President Jimmy
Carter joined the “Let’s kick Barack” crowd when he, too, suggested that the
President waited too long to engage ISIS and let them build momentum in Syria
before they moved into Iraq. Oh and Hillary suggested the man who appointed her
to the top State Department job also kind of screwed up, too.
http://time.com/3481324/jimmy-carter-president-obama-isis/
Maloni on a Limb…..
Contrary to what President Obama has vowed, I believe
that there will be “US boots (back) on the ground” in Iraq and elsewhere in the
Middle East within the next year. (It’s
important to clarify, no matter what the WH says, I am sure there already are
many US contract and special forces combat personnel at work in those
countries, but my prediction has to do with recognized US military units
publicly joining the fray.)
If things get worse, which seems likely, the Pentagon
and the American people will get frustrated relying on foreign troops who have
different priorities to fight ISIL, plus these bombs-only assaults, which few
tangible results, tend to get very costly $$$$$.
The President’s anti-ISIL declarations already have
“written bigger results checks than politically he can cash,” especially if he
doesn’t OK US forces in combat.
What
Others Are Saying
Economist Justin
Wolfers handicaps Senate races in NYT column.
____________________________________________________
Senator
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unloads on just about everything in
Salon interview. (Thanks, JV.)
____________________________________________________
Turkey’s
Big Price for Engaging ISIS/ISIL
______________________________________________
In conflicting opinions on whether Congress will soon
pass mortgage reform legislation, consumer activist Ralph Nader and Sen. Mark
Warner (D-Va.), sharply disagree.
Warner
“Yes way”
Nader
“No way”
As per usual, I think Warner is all wet and wrong.
______________________________________________
NY Post Says Ackman
Buys More F&F Stock??
http://nypost.com/2014/10/09/bill-ackman-adds-to-fannie-freddie-stakes/
______________________________________________
More on AIG
____________________________________________________
Texas Not Turning
Blue?
I’m disappointed, I know I’ve contributed to Wendy
Davis’s gubernatorial campaign in hopes of her winning.
______________________________________________
GOP
Corner
Republican
Bozell Spanks Karl Rove; Says Rove
Doesn’t
Like “True” Conservative Office Seekers
____________________________________________________
Some details on which Palins did what to whom in
their famous ‘trailer trash” brawl.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/sarah-palin-police-report_n_5965650.html
______________________________________________
Juicy Unverifiable Rumor: Reportedly, because plaintiffs don’t trust the
US government to provide all records in “third amendment discovery,” there was
a story of big dollar bounties being
offered for sensitive docs. That all may be bubkis, but if government employees
do withhold, some whistle blower is going to speak out.
Added on 10-15-2014
It's Not Fair, in fact it sucks!
As you age, you see more and more that strikes you
as unfair. Today was a day for one of those mean spirited and senseless things.
Judge Margaret Sweeney sustained the government’s
objection to Fairholme hiring Tim Howard and an expert consultant to participate with Fairholme’s lawyers in the
“discovery” which Sweeney earlier this year had approved.
I guess it could have been worse, she could have
reneged on her initial discovery approval.
Sorry, I don’t buy the government’s argument that
Tim might misuse the information he might have seen, while subject to the same
Sweeney discovery gag order which applies to everyone who sees the information.
Maloni, 10-13-2014
2 comments:
This will get out of hand soon if the government doesn't fix this asap. Main street isn't as dumb as they think it is and these court cases are making them look very bad. Even if they do end up winning the cases, irreparable damage is being written into the history books as we speak.
I'll be out tomorrow (Monday) with a new blog and clearly the WH is backing off as they plan to give new tasks to F&F to carry out.
But, on a broader scale I hope you are correct.
Post a Comment