Goodnight Moon & You Want to do What?
Goodnight Moon, good
night stars, good night red balloon. Good night Obama legacy?
My hopes—if not the
nation’s, the world’s, and his own--for President Obama's second term success seem
to be teetering and about to slide into an abyss. His poll numbers may not show
it, but my sense is that the public has come close to turning cold on this
President seven months after his solid defeat of Mitt Romney.
The poor guy cannot escape
controversy and appears flummoxed. Can Seal Team 6 kill Bin Laden, again?
Whether it's Benghazi,
IRS stupidities, phone and email invasions, Syria, North Korea, Iran, or
immigration, every time Barack Obama sees a fruit bowl hoping for a plum, he reaches
in and pulls out something rotten.
Are we seeing the creation of a negative Obama legacy?
I keep asking myself how
Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson or even Harry Truman would play the cards Obama
has been dealt this year?
With the first two—shortly
after inviting them to the WH for drinks--I suspect that there would be several
congressional Republicans with bloody noses and cracked teeth, after Harry and LBJ got done thrashing them. And Bill Clinton
would be administering poison punji sticks, while smiling and slapping their
backs.
I don’t believe those
other Democrats would display Obama’s current “deer in headlights” confused look.
Obama's well known political shortcomings
and inept handling produced these episodes and more, since the government
officials involved in these messes either report to him or folks he appointed.
The President can bob
and weave for a bit, but sparring over these mistakes leaves him with very
little leverage to achieve any of his foreign or domestic priorities.
The good news for Barack
Obama is that his opponents are Republicans who still don’t get it, who still want
to embarrass him rather than help formulate constructive policy; as bad as BHO
looks, they look and act worse.
Obama persists in giving
the GOP sharks fresh blood in the water and—from the day he was first elected—they
pledged never to do anything which makes Obama or his policies look good.
That’s one reason why the absence of Obama thunder in one of his fist and
lightning in the other is so disappointing.
Can you say, "Hello Hillary!"
Maloni’s Bucket List
Multiple media reports have
Banking Committee Senators Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) soon
introducing dynamic legislation—in that it is grand with many moving and
expensive parts—to restructure the nation’s mortgage lending system.
I love the bipartisan
effort, Senators, but…..
The proposed bill, as described, would:
do away with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;
keep the Home Loan Bank System; create a new federal re-insuring
corporation to provide guarantees on private label mortgage securities (PLS),
issued by large banks and other lenders; and put everything on the federal
budget. Oh, and all of Fannie Mae’s and
Freddie’s Mac existing contingent financial liabilities would be added to Uncle
Sam’s tab, too.
Whew, do we have enough national fingers to count all those budget dollars??
So the two Senators and
any co-sponsors they attract will take everything Fannie and Freddie now do--easily,
glitch free, and successfully—and give it all to a new to a new“ federal financial intermediary.
The connection between this segment my personal “Bucket List”—the
things I want to do before I die--was produced by comments reportedly
attributed to Senator Warner, when recently he met with a Virginia community
lender who sought ongoing support for the two secondary mortgage market securitizers.
Warner, never a player
in mortgage finance issues, boasted to that lending exec, “Congress is going to end
Fannie and Freddie."
My “Bucket List” has dramatically shrunk over the years. I was
fortunate enough to cross out many of the “do before I croak” items, especially
when Kate Middleton chose to marry that youthful “other Bill.”
But the Warner comment and dozens of similar ones from House Republicans and
others has catapulted to the top of my BL my wish to, "Meet
with every member of the Senate and House Banking Committees and discuss their
positions on Fannie Mae (and mortgage finance), explore their reasoning, and
bring them up to date on issues about which I expect they know and understand very
little."
The more I read of public officials making the inane, hyperbolic, thoughtless, and worse fact-less
political statements, the more I feel the urgency to get on with my BL task #1.
Naturally, when Warner
visited Freddie Mac's McLean headquarters a few days later, he
softened his tone, since the company is home to four or five thousand of his
constituents, and he opted not to take credit for a plan to make many of them
jobless.
My reports on that
gentle repartee suggested, unfortunately, that no Freddie employee or exec
asked Warner, "Why would you abolish them? What was and is their crime
that deserves such disparate treatment from other vital companies the
government helped, starting in 2008?”
I hope he gets asked those
questions later this week,
when--reportedly—he will meet with representatives of another impacted
organization and that officials strenuously challenge the Warner’s
rationale.
The same inquiries
should be put to Senator Corker, anyone other Senator, or the next “monkey see
monkey do” Congressman who grabs the Corker-Warner proposal throws their name
on it and drops it in the bill “hopper.”
--What exactly are the problems you proposed to repair with this massive expansion of federal government control? Or is this all just punitive because you believe a great injustice was done and now you are going to mete out bipartisan post facto “vigilante” justice, likely at the expense of the consumers you argue you are helping?
--Do , Fannie and Freddie still represent too much risk, today--now that they all
but paid back the Treasury the $186 billion given since 2008? Hasn’t
that been a good thing?
--Is there any reason to think that the pre-2008 mischief is starting up
again requiring you to act now?
--Do the two work well, systemically, supporting the broader system? It sure seems that way
since so many lenders, mostly banks and banked own smaller lenders employ, pay
for F&F’s services. That fact also helps explain part of the historic
increase in major revenue passing through the two into Treasury coffers
recently?
--Is there a problem with the current F&F executives and
boards of directors (most named by the Obama or Bush Administrations)? Are
those officials not competent?
--Will Corker-Warner insure that mortgage credit is efficiently
available at reasonable prices to consumers in every community, as now is the case
with F&F under girding the secondary mortgage market: will it also be part
of an extremely efficient system which matches borrowers to lenders and
originators with investors, in a smooth and seamless manner, allowing capital
from all over the world to fund America’s homeownership needs?
You see Senators, because
that's what F&F do now and could do even better if they didn't have to run
through the Treasury and FHFA hoops (For instance, management could make their
own decisions about reducing principal amounts on underwater loans, not
turn that into a spat between the WH and an acting FHFA director).
--If, as rumored, your proposal contains major elements championed
by Ed DeMarco, who the White House has been trying to remove for more than a
year, someone needs to answer, what in
the Hell has DeMarco been conserving these two companies to do, if it just is
to let you crush them?
With both companies generating historic earnings and repaying the taxpayer, it seems they have been financially
revived and now you plan to kill them?
-- Senators Corker and Warner, if you compare pluses and minuses
of creating from whole cloth--and having the taxpayers support form Day 1-- this giant new mortgage finance system or marginally tweaking two
well-known market, familiar to all in the mortgage market and with a history of
solid service--PLS subprime and Alt A no-doc episodes to the contrary-- why does
you approach make superior practical, financial, and political sense?
--Does anyone besides the major TBTF banks—with new MBS
guarantees--benefit from the claim that your approach is a better way to finance
US home mortgages?
Does Uncle Sam taking all of this broad new authority and debt on
his shoulders (and in his budget) really attract new “private capital” to the
mortgage market or would it be better to rely on those institutional investors, who traditionally
have bought Fannie/Freddie debt and mortgage securities?
--Sorry to be repetitious, but in the politically riven Capitol, with cooperation measured by the thimble, why is this a simpler, less expensive
and more desirable than tweaking Fannie and Freddie?
Face it, F&F already
are at work doing what you claim you want. They’re known by mortgage market
participants, already have the lender networks and business relationships, and soon will have repaid all of the $186
Billion the Treasury used to keep them floating.
--As you answer these questions, Senators, please acknowledge the fact that
the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), F&F’s current federal
overseer—with dozens of employees working in the offices of the two mortgage
giants--two years ago implemented two major regulations which all but
prohibit a replay of the subprime debacle. 1) Fannie and Freddie are prohibited
from acquiring or securitizing others flawed mortgage assets, i.e. “subprime
loans”; and 2) FHFA all but has eliminated the controversial percentage of
business housing goals requirements, which the GOP right wing strongly opposed
and F&F.
It seems to me that nobody either fully
appreciates or wants to admit, that these last two regulatory improvements virtually
have solved the problems which produced Fannie's and Freddie's subprime woes of
a few years ago.
I am not a fan of your
approach, Senators, but I welcome it because I think you will provide a forum
and opportunities for the Congress, once again, to begin to understand the
system you hope to eviscerate and reconstruct, which then will give me more
opportunities to work through Item #1
on my Bucket List.
I have one more hope from
legislative hearings or even hearings on the Mel Watt nomination for the top
FHFA job. I want them to create an “Aha Moment” for some smart US Senator—when
the light bulb above his/her head finally goes on—to declare, “This committee
should be revitalizing Fannie and Freddie with better monitoring, not
destroying them.”[i]
Maloni, 6-3-2013
I'd like to think that I speak for everyone when I say: ain't buying it.
ReplyDeleteWhatever Corky is fixing to introduce, if anything - as the possibility of his just seeking attention is strong - will not be anything like today's rumor mill has it. No one would be that stupid.
BTW, ouch!
ReplyDelete6-1
Think again.
ReplyDeleteSee Bloomberg wire story filed earlier this evening.
Don't know what Corker is trying to achieve, politically, but there aren't 60 votes in the Senate for anything which looks like this.
6/3/13 7:46 PM EDT
A bill being drafted by a bipartisan group of senators led by Bob Corker and Mark Warner would abolish Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in five years and force private companies to cover losses in the housing market equal to those seen in past downturns, according to a draft copy of the bill obtained by Bloomberg.
The Treasury Department would take the first proceeds from the wind down as the senior-preferred shareholder in the two taxpayer-owned companies. Proceeds would then go to banks, insurance companies and hedge funds that own junior preferred shares in Fannie and Freddie, followed by common shareholders. Treasury would be responsible for the loans the two companies have guaranteed.
A new entity named the Federal Mortgage Insurance Corp. would be set up to help smaller lenders to finance their mortgages and would guarantee some loans for multifamily properties, according to Bloomberg.
Corker declined to comment on the contents of the bill but said in brief interview with POLITICO that “the talks have been very, very productive.”
— Jon Prior
I think Bloomberg and other sources appearing today went on your post. You're famous, man!
ReplyDeleteSorry, just read the remaining of your response:
ReplyDelete"Proceeds would then go to banks, insurance companies and hedge funds that own junior preferred shares in Fannie and Freddie, followed by common shareholders"
Trust me, I have read every prospectus of the juniors and not a single one points out that favored junior preferred owners are senior to others juniors.
Seriously, the more I read about this "Corky bill" the more I laugh at its ridiculousness. It's as if hedge funds own him and have ordered him to weaken the junior preferred market.
I believe there are about 25 Fannie and Freddie "preferreds" currently trading out there, some issued in 1997 and 1998.
ReplyDeleteI think Treasury has near total discretion to reinstate the dividends, if it chooses, possibly as part of a long term revitalization--should that be the policy.
(It makes sense if F&F ever need to raise money in the future.)
But who knows what is contemplated in the Corker-Warner bill, which shouldn't matter because I don't think it ever could pass.
But, for me, anything which shows some attention to preferred investors is more desirable than silence on the subject.
Not sure if I was clear, but--as part of a long term revitalization plan--it make no sense for Treasury not reinstate preferred dividend payments.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it makes zero sense to restore dividends. If FnF are set free the first item on their agenda will be rebuilding their capital base, not depleting it further by paying dividends.
ReplyDeleteThere are 38 FnF preferred issues.
As I definitively stated, there are 38 F&F preferred issuances.
ReplyDelete