Affordable Housing

Mortgage Giant Seeks Another $8.4 Billion in Bailouts, After Obama Lifts $400 Billion Limit on Bailouts for Government-Sponsored Enterprises

by Hans Bader on May 10, 2010 · 2 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Mortgage giant Fannie Mae is seeking another $8.4 billion in federal bailout money, after the Obama administration earlier lifted a $400 billion limit on bailouts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored mortgage giants that officials say were at the “core” of “what went wrong” in the financial crisis. Last week, Freddie Mac asked for $10.6 billion more in bailouts. The Obama administration is certain to approve the requests: “Late last year, the Obama administration pledged to cover unlimited losses through 2012 for Freddie and Fannie,” reports the New York Times.

Obama’s so-called financial “reform” proposal does nothing to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Obama’s Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who concedes they were “a core part of what went wrong in our system.” (At the direction of the Obama administration, Freddie Mac is now running up $30 billion in losses to bail out mortgage borrowers, some of whom have high incomes.  Federal regulators sought to make Freddie Mac hide the resulting losses from the SEC and the public.)  By contrast, the Republican alternative “aims to wind down, and break up” Freddie Mac and “limit taxpayer exposure” to its losses.

“American taxpayers are paying for $6.8 billion of the Greek bailout” through contributions to an international bailout fund backed by the Obama administration.   Greece is being bailed out by Europe and the international community because it is running up huge budget deficits due to a bloated bureaucracy and government pensions that let many Greeks retire in their 50s. “The Obama administration wants to use U.S. tax dollars to bail out a nation that is in a financial death spiral brought on by years of amazingly irresponsible deficit spending and similar behaviors often found in socialist states.”

Rioters in Greece killed three bank employees yesterday in their rage over possible budget cuts.  “The protesting civil servant workers trapped the bank employees in a burning building.”

The Obama administration earlier lifted the $400 billion limit on bailouts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so that they could continue to buy up junky mortgages at taxpayer expense, and showered their executives with $42 million in compensation.

Fannie and Freddie helped spawn the mortgage crisis by acting as loan toilets, buying up risky mortgages and thus creating an artificial market for junk.  “From the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime.”  They paid their CEOs millions, and engaged in massive accounting fraud — $6.3 billion at Fannie Mae alone — to increase the size of their managers’ bonuses.  As Government-Sponsored Enterprises, they were exempt from the capital requirements that apply to private banks, so they did not have enough reserves to cover their losses when their mortgages started defaulting.

Banking expert Peter Wallison, who warned for years about the risky practices of Fannie and Freddie, says Obama’s proposals will lead to “bailouts forever.”  Obama claims that it will not lead to more bailouts.  But as Congressman Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) admitted, the “bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. . .The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority.”

Government pressure on banks to make loans in economically-depressed neighborhoods was a major cause of the mortgage crisis.  If Obama has his way, that pressure will increase.  The House earlier approved Obama’s proposal to create a politically-correct entity called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The agency would be in charge of enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that prods banks to make loans in low-income communities.”  It would do so without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness, even though the Community Reinvestment Act was a key contributor to the financial crisis.

Trojan Horse Financial “Reform” Bill Enriches Goldman Sachs, Rips Off Taxpayers

by Hans Bader on April 19, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

The Obama administration and Congressional leaders are pushing a trojan-horse financial “reform” bill that would enrich the wealthy and powerful investment bank Goldman Sachs, which was recently cited for massive fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  That’s the discovery of John Berlau, who won the National Press Club’s Sandy Hume Memorial Award for exposing the conflicts of interest of a former IRS Commissioner.

Earlier, the administration used the AIG bailout to give billions in legally unnecessary payments to Goldman Sachs, which is so rich that it has admitted it didn’t even need the money.  Goldman Sachs, one of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors, is using its political connections to reap record profits.

Moreover, Obama’s legislation would do nothing to rein in the worst offenders behind the mortgage crisis, the government-subsidized mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even as it would give the government the permanent ability to bail out Wall Street firms.

Obama’s proposed financial rules overhaul does absolutely nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, even though he admits that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.” Worse, the Obama administration lifted the $400-billion limit on bailouts for Fannie and Freddie, so that they could continue to buy up junky mortgages at taxpayer expense, and showered their executives with $42 million in compensation.

The administration is now expanding the bailouts of these mortgage giants, which are now giving lavish pay to their CEOs and reducing the payments of deadbeat mortgage borrowers.  (At the direction of the Obama administration, Freddie Mac is now running up $30 billion in losses to bail out mortgage borrowers, some of whom have high incomes.  Federal regulators sought to make Freddie Mac hide the resulting losses from the SEC and the public).

Fannie and Freddie helped spawn the mortgage crisis by acting as loan toilets, buying up risky mortgages and thus creating an artificial market for junk.  “From the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime.”

Why did they buy these risky loans?  They put up with Clinton-era affordable-housing regulations that required them to buy up lots of risky loans, in order to curry favor on Capitol Hill and thus retain their annual $10 billion in tax and other special privileges (which they possessed owing to their status as “Government-Sponsored Enterprises” or GSEs). They paid their CEOs millions in the process, and engaged in massive accounting fraud — $6.3 billion at Fannie Mae alone — to increase the size of their managers’ bonuses.  As GSEs, they were exempt from the capital requirements that apply to private banks, so they did not have enough reserves to cover their losses when their mortgages started defaulting.

Banking expert Peter J. Wallison, who prophetically warned against the risky practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years, says that Obama’s proposals will lead to “bailouts forever” and give big, politically connected banks that are “too big to fail” the ability to drive smaller rivals out of business at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.  His colleague Alex Pollock notes that Obama has not lived up his administration’s claims that it would back reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Government pressure on banks to make loans in economically-depressed neighborhoods was another key reason for the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis.  If Obama has his way, that pressure will increase.  The House earlier approved Obama’s proposal to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The agency would be in charge of enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that prods banks to make loans in low-income communities.”  It would do so without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness, even though the Community Reinvestment Act was a key contributor to the financial crisis.

Obama Administration Rewards Corrupt Mortgage Giants, Punishes Productive Private Banks, Fleeces Taxpayers and Responsible Credit Cardholders

by Hans Bader on March 10, 2010 · 3 comments

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Energy, Environment, Labor, Mobility, Natural Resources, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony

The Obama administration wants to increase taxes on productive banks that are self-supporting, while exempting the mortgage giants and other companies that got massive taxpayer bailouts.  For more details, click on this graph, “Bank-robbing tax lets ‘bad guys’ go free,” courtesy of a Washington think-tank, the Heritage Foundation.  It shows that the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are exempt and will never have to pay a dime, despite being bailed out by taxpayers at a cost of more than $200 billion, while Bank of America and Wells Fargo, which are solvent and returned all their TARP money, would be forced to pay billions under the administration’s proposed tax.

General Motors and Chrysler won’t have to pay a dime, either, even though the government claimed they were “financial institutions” just like banks in order to use bank bailout money to bail them out at a cost of at least $70 billion (a bailout that would not even have been needed to save the companies if they had simply been reformed to make them competitive, and received relief from burdensome red tape, like poorly-drafted CAFE and global-warming regulations that may backfire.  Instead, the Obama administration effectively gave the companies, at taxpayer expense, to the UAW, a powerful union opposed to much-needed reforms).

In other news, economists and real estate experts say that a mortgage bailout program the Obama administration spent $75 billion on has backfired and harmed the real estate market.

Obama recently expanded the bailout of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and lavished money ($42 million) on their CEOs.

Under the Bush administration, federal regulators took over Fannie and Freddie in the name of stopping their risky practices. But the Obama administration has increased their purchases of risky mortgages in a vain attempt to inflate the economy. Worse, it forced them to run up to tens of billions in losses to bail out deadbeat and at-risk mortgage borrowers, and then tried to conceal those losses, in conduct reminiscent of Enron.  But their management hasn’t objected, because the costly requirements are accompanied by massive taxpayer bailouts and lavish pay for the mortgage giants’ CEOs.

Fannie and Freddie helped spawn the mortgage crisis by acting as loan toilets, buying up risky mortgages and thus creating an artificial market for junk.  “From the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime.”

Why did they buy these risky loans?  They put up with Clinton-era affordable-housing regulations that required them to buy up lots of risky loans, in order to curry favor on Capitol Hill and thus retain their annual $10 billion in tax and other special privileges (which they possessed owing to their status as “Government-Sponsored Enterprises” or GSEs). They paid their CEOs millions in the process, and engaged in massive accounting fraud — $6.3 billion at Fannie Mae alone — to increase the size of their managers’ bonuses.  As GSEs, they were exempt from the capital requirements that apply to private banks, so they did not have enough reserves to cover their losses when their mortgages started defaulting.

At the direction of the Obama administration, Freddie Mac is now running up $30 billion in losses to bail out mortgage borrowers, some of whom have high incomes.  Federal regulators sought to make Freddie Mac hide the resulting losses from the SEC and the public.

Under Obama’s proposed financial “reforms,” banks will be pressured to make even more risky, low-income loans. Obama has sent to Congress his proposal to create a politically correct entity called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, tasked with enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act. Government pressure on banks to make low-income loans was a key reason for the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis. Yet Obama’s proposals would empower the new agency to enforce the Community Reinvestment Act, which was a key contributor to the financial crisis, without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness.

Moreover, Obama’s proposed financial rules do absolutely nothing to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, even though he admits that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.”

Meanwhile, a new law backed by the Obama administration, the CARD Act of 2009, has effectively forced responsible credit-cardholders to subsidize irresponsible people, leading to the return of annual fees on many credit cards, and the elimination of many cash-back and rewards programs.  My wife, who has an excellent credit rating, was recently informed that one of her cards will now have an annual fee — of $60!  (She promptly canceled the card.)

More Enron-like Behavior by Administration Officials Comes to Light

by Hans Bader on January 7, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Insurance, Legal, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Earlier, the Washington Post reported on how the Obama administration pressured Freddie Mac not to disclose to investors and the SEC the $30 billion in losses it was incurring as a result of Obama’s mortgage bailouts for undeserving (including high-income) borrowers.

Now, Bloomberg News reports that then-Federal Reserve Bank head (and now Treasury Secretary) “Timothy Geithner, told American International Group Inc. to withhold details from the public about the bailed-out insurer’s payments to banks during the depths of the financial crisis,” and to hide them from the SEC in its SEC filings.  Such conduct is not too surprising coming from Geithner, a sanctimonious and hypocritical tax cheat.  Geithner also used the government’s bailout of AIG to pay billions of dollars to the wealthy Wall Street investment firm of Goldman Sachs, money that it neither needed to stay afloat, nor was legally entitled to.

Earlier this year, Freddie Mac’s CFO killed himself amidst a sea of red ink, as the administration forced Freddie to run up losses on mortgage bailouts, even though economists and real estate experts have criticized those bailouts as harmful to the economy.  Now, the Obama administration is making Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae deliberately run up losses on bailouts and buying up risky loans, even though the government took over Fannie and Freddie in 2008 in the name of ending their risky practices.  It is rewarding their executives for carrying out such terrible policies by showering them with multimillion dollar pay.

The mortgage crisis was caused partly by the reckless government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and partly by the affordable-housing mandates imposed on them.

But Obama’s proposed financial rules overhaul does absolutely nothing about the risky practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, even though he admits that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.”

Instead, it pressures banks to make even more risky loans.  The House has approved Obama’s proposal to create a politically-correct entity called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The agency would be in charge of enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that prods banks to make loans in low-income communities.”  The Community Reinvestment Act was a key contributor to the financial crisis.  But the administration’s proposal would direct the new agency to enforce the Community Reinvestment Act without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness.

“How ACORN Destroyed the Housing Market”

by Hans Bader on November 16, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Sanctimony

Federal affordable-housing mandates were a major factor in the mortgage crisis, fueling the housing bubble and the subsequent collapse of the housing and financial markets, which helped bring down the economy.  Even the liberal Village Voice has admitted that.  Who drafted those awful mandates?  ACORN, reports the Washington Examiner, in “How ACORN Destroyed the Housing Market.”

How did ACORN cause the “housing bubble” and “financial collapse”?  ACORN lobbyists drafted “affordable-housing” mandates to pressure the mortgage giants to buy up more risky loans and mortgages from low-income communities, loans that banks in turn were pressured to make by the Community Reinvestment Act, explains The Wall Street Journal.

ACORN also helped spawn the mortgage crisis by promoting “liar loans.”   It has a long history of  financial fraud, vote fraud, tax evasion, waste, and mismanagement.

Lawmakers and the Obama administration have studiously ignored ACORN’s role in spawning the financial crisis, because many liberal lawmakers have long had close ties to ACORN.  ACORN is a left-wing group that launched Obama’s career as a community organizer.  (ACORN stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.)  Obama has long-standing ties to ACORN, and an ACORN affiliate received received $800,000 from Obama’s campaign.

In recent months, lawmakers distanced themselves from ACORN, and cut off its federal housing funds, after it was caught on videotape in a child prostitution promotion scandal.  (ACORN is now suing the federal government in court, to force it to resume funding ACORN.  Earlier, it sued the private citizens who exposed its role in the scandal for $2 million).

However, in the long run, ACORN is likely to continue to benefit from its close ties to liberal lawmakers and the administration.  Entities related to ACORN stand to reap millions from Obama’s financial regulation proposals and health-care reform proposals.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is busy promoting the junky, risky mortgages that fueled the housing bubble, showing that it has learned nothing from history.  One result is that the Federal Housing Administration, which is making many such loans, has gone into a “nose dive” and may need a multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailout, reports the Washington Post.

Obama wants to create a bureaucracy called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The agency would be in charge of enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that prods banks to make loans in low-income communities.” The Community Reinvestment Act was a key contributor to the financial crisis.  Yet Obama’s plan would empower the CFPA to enforce the Community Reinvestment Act without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness.

The mortgage crisis was also caused by the reckless government-sponsored mortgage giants (”GSEs”) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and by federal affordable-housing mandates.

But Obama’s proposed financial rules overhaul does absolutely nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Obama’s Treasury Secretary, tax cheat Timothy Geithner, even though he admits that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.”

Worse, Obama’s plan is “largely the product of extensive conversations” with two lawmakers responsible for the corrupt status quo, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, and it expands the reach of regulations that have been used by left-wing groups to extort pay-offs from banks.

Recently, the administration got rid of the inspector general for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, after making Freddie Mac run up $30 billion in losses from the Obama administration’s mortgage bailouts, which bailed out even high-income borrowers who irresponsibly mismanaged their finances.  Earlier, Obama fired an inspector general, Gerald Walpin, who uncovered misuse of funds by a prominent Obama backer, smearing the inspector general with allegations that turned out to be false.

Obama Backs Corrupt Status Quo in Financial Rules Overhaul

by Hans Bader on June 23, 2009 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Sanctimony

The mortgage crisis was caused largely by the reckless government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and by federal affordable-housing mandates. But Obama’s proposed financial rules overhaul does absolutely nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Obama’s Treasury Secretary, tax cheat Timothy Geithner, even though he admits that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.” Worse, Obama’s plan is “largely the product of extensive conversations” with two lawmakers responsible for the corrupt status quo, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, and it expands the reach of regulations that have been used by left-wing groups to extort pay-offs from banks.

(Fannie Mae engaged in massive fraud and political bullying to thwart reform. It and Freddie Mac lost so much money gambling on the housing market that they were taken over by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which took them over in the name of ending their risky practices, but instead actually increased their purchases of risky mortgage loans in an effort to artificially prop up the housing market. Obama made Freddie Mac lose $30 billion more after the takeover in order to write off mortgage loans to delinquent mortgage borrowers.)

Worse, Obama’s proposed regulatory blueprint actually increases the pressure on banks to make risky mortgage loans to low-income borrowers, by ratcheting up enforcement of regulations mandating such lending under the Community Reinvestment Act, which was a key contributor to the financial crisis. His financial regulation overhaul would create a new bureaucratic agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, to enforce the Act without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness.

Obama’s proposed financial rules also let the government take over financial institutions even if they are not broke. That gives the government the ability to seize institutions in ways that favor special interest groups, either by bailing them out at taxpayer expense, or effectively giving their valuable assets away to politically-connected buyers. The administration’s white paper advocates a “regime” that would allow takeovers not only of banks, but also of “nonbank financial firms.” Under it, the government would receive “broad powers to take action with respect to the financial firm,” including “the authority to take control of the operations of the firm or to sell or transfer all or any part of the assets of the firm.”

That could really harm taxpayers. Take a look at what happened at AIG, which was bailed out at a cost of $170 billion. Billions of tax dollars were spent on payments to AIG customers like Goldman Sachs, the wealthy investment bank, which received more money than it ever expected to receive or had any right to receive from AIG. Goldman Sachs is now reporting record profits. Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party and liberal politicians.

Chrysler is another example of a wasteful federal takeover: after effectively taking over the company and giving it billions of taxpayer dollars that will likely never be repaid, the federal government gave most of the company to the United Auto Workers Union. Meanwhile, it ripped off the pension funds that were legally entitled to be paid back before the UAW received any money.

The government can take even a poorly-run institution and make it run worse. The government took over IndyMac bank, and then used its control to give mortgage bailouts at taxpayer expense. “FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair, whom Obama held over because of the liberal policies she pursued in the latter half of the Bush administration (such as strong backing of the Community Reinvestment Act), . . . disregarded taxpayer interests upon seizing the large thrift Indymac and other banks and created a ‘model’ mortgage modification program for thousands of borrowers that wrote off principal on the loans and reduced interest payments to well below market rates. Initial results show a redefault rate in programs like these of more than 50 percent, but Bair and Obama show no signs of stopping this flawed experiment with taxpayer dollars.”

Obama’s proposals would force banks to make even MORE risky loans to low-income people. Even liberal newspapers like the Village Voice have admitted that “affordable housing” mandates are a key reason for the housing crisis and the massive number of defaulting borrowers.

But Obama plans to create a new “Consumer Financial Protection Agency” to stringently enforce Community Reinvestment Act regulations that require banks to make loans to low-income borrowers. Banks make pay-offs to left-wing “fair housing” groups to avoid charges that they have violated the CRA. Obama once represented ACORN, which pressures banks to make risky loans. Obama’s white paper complains that existing agencies do not enforce low-income lending requirements zealously enough because they have a “primary mission . . . to ensure that financial institutions act prudently.” (Pg. 54).

Obama’s demand for more low-income loans ignores the lessons of history. The current mortgage crisis came about in large part because of Clinton-era government pressure on lenders to make risky loans in order to make homeownership more affordable for lower-income Americans and those with a poor credit history, the DC Examiner notes. “Those steps encouraged riskier mortgage lending by minimizing the role of credit histories in lending decisions, loosening required debt-to-equity ratios to allow borrowers to make small or even no down payments at all, and encouraging lenders to use floating or adjustable interest-rate mortgages, including those with low ‘teasers.’”

The liberal Village Voice previously chronicled how Clinton Administration housing secretary Andrew Cuomo helped spawn the mortgage crisis through his pressure on lenders to promote affordable housing and diversity. “Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down . . . Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.” (See Wayne Barrett, “Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie: How the Youngest Housing and Urban Development Secretary in History Gave Birth to the Mortgage Crisis,” Village Voice, August 5, 2008).

In drafting his financial regulation proposals, Obama has turned to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, lawmakers who are among those most culpable in spawning the financial crisis. The New York Times reports that “the plan is largely the product of extensive conversations between senior administration officials and top Democratic lawmakers — primarily Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut.” Frank and Dodd were the lawmakers who defeated reform proposals to rein in the government-sponsored mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which later had to be bailed out for hundreds of billions of dollars. Fannie Mae killed reform proposals by paying off liberal lawmakers and bullying critics. Dodd recently attracted criticism for financial and ethical lapses.

Liberal lawmakers have long pressured financial institutions to promote risky low-income loans, to a degree that even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eventually found unreasonable. For example, the New York Times reported that “a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers, according to a Congressional source.” The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “eventually yielded to those pressures, effectively wagering that if things got too bad, the government would bail them out.”

As a Washington Post story shows, the high-risk loans that led to the mortgage crisis were often the product of regulatory pressure. Even after banking officials “warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending. Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more ‘affordable’ loans made to these borrowers.”

Obama Seeks to Mandate More Risky, Low-Income Loans by Banks, in New Financial Rules

by Hans Bader on June 17, 2009 · 11 comments

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Legal, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

The President has just announced proposals for a major overhaul of the financial system. The proposals would force banks to make even MORE risky loans to low-income people. Even liberal newspapers like the Village Voice have admitted that “affordable housing” mandates are a key reason for the housing crisis and the massive number of defaulting borrowers. But Obama will not accept this reality. Instead, he wants to create a new “Consumer Financial Protection Agency” to rigorously enforce regulations pressuring banks to make loans to low-income borrowers, such as the Community Reinvestment Act. (Obama once represented ACORN, which pressures banks to make risky loans).

In explaining why there is supposedly a need for this new agency, when other agencies already enforce the Community Reinvestment Act and fair-lending laws, his regulatory blueprint complains that “State and federal bank supervisory agencies’ primary mission is to ensure that financial institutions act prudently, a mission that, in appearance if not always in practice, often conflicts with their consumer protection responsibilities.” (Pg. 54).

In other words, the power to force banks to make low-income loans should be given to an agency that has no duty to ensure prudent lending or to take into account the effects of such requirements on banks’ stability or viability.

The President also wants to give financial regulators the power to seize key companies to prevent real or imagined “systemic risks” to the financial system. These are the same federal regulators who used the AIG bailout to give billions in unnecessary payments to Goldman Sachs, which neither needed nor expected that much money, and forced Freddie Mac to run up $30 billion in losses to bail out deadbeat mortgage borrowers. This is the same federal government that took over Chrysler and General Motors, and then used them to rip off pension funds and taxpayers and enrich the UAW union.

(There is one good thing in the President’s proposals, though: they get rid of the inept Office of Thrift Supervision, which poorly supervised savings and loans and AIG, and gives most of its responsibilities to the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, which competently supervises national banks.)

Obama’s regulatory blueprint disingenuously claims that the Community Reinvestment Act, which pressures banks to make low-income loans, can’t have contributed to the mortgage crisis, because it existed for years before the crisis began. But it is not the Act’s passage, alone, that economists credit with causing the mortgage crisis, but rather the unrealistic regulations adopted to implement the Act many years after the Act’s passage. Those regulations went into effect not that long before the mortgage bubble began, as historian Clayton Cramer notes. Economists, investment bankers, and historians have long noted the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and its regulations in promoting the risky lending that spawned the financial crisis. Investors Business Daily has chronicled how “the Community Reinvestment Act” pressured lenders to make the risky loans that led to the mortgage meltdown.

The current mortgage crisis came about in large part because of Clinton-era government pressure on lenders to make risky loans in order to “make homeownership more affordable for lower-income Americans and those with a poor credit history,” the DC Examiner notes. “Those steps encouraged riskier mortgage lending by minimizing the role of credit histories in lending decisions, loosening required debt-to-equity ratios to allow borrowers to make small or even no down payments at all, and encouraging lenders the use of floating or adjustable interest-rate mortgages, including those with low ‘teasers.’”

The liberal Village Voice previously chronicled how Clinton Administration housing secretary Andrew Cuomo helped spawn the mortgage crisis through his pressure on lenders to promote affordable housing and diversity. “Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down . . . Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.” (See Wayne Barrett, “Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie: How the Youngest Housing and Urban Development Secretary in History Gave Birth to the Mortgage Crisis,” Village Voice, August 5, 2008).

In drafting his financial regulation proposals, Obama has turned to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, lawmakers who are among those most culpable in spawning the financial crisis. The New York Times reports that “the plan is largely the product of extensive conversations between senior administration officials and top Democratic lawmakers — primarily Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut.” Frank and Dodd were the lawmakers who defeated reform proposals to rein in the government-sponsored mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which later had to be bailed out for hundreds of billions of dollars. Fannie Mae killed reform proposals by paying off liberal lawmakers and bullying critics. Dodd recently attracted criticism for financial and ethical lapses.

Banks and mortgage companies have long been under pressure from lawmakers and regulators to give loans to people with bad credit, in order to provide “affordable housing” and promote “diversity.” That played a key role in triggering the mortgage crisis, judging from a story last year in the New York Times.

For example, “a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers, according to a Congressional source.” The executives of government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “eventually yielded to those pressures, effectively wagering that if things got too bad, the government would bail them out.” But they realized the risk: “In 2004, Freddie Mac warned regulators that affordable housing goals could force the company to buy riskier loans.” Ultimately, though, Freddie Mac’s CEO, Richard F. Syron, told colleagues that “we couldn’t afford to say no to anyone.”

As a Washington Post story shows, the high-risk loans that led to the mortgage crisis were the product of regulatory pressure, not a lack of regulation. In 2004, even after banking officials “warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending. Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more ‘affordable’ loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.”

Lenders also face the risk of being sued for discrimination if they fail to make loans to people with bad credit, which often has a racially-disparate impact (proving that such impact is unintentional is costly and difficult, and not always sufficient to avoid liability under antidiscrimination laws). They also risk possible sanctions under the Community Reinvestment Act.

Banks get sued for discrimination no matter what they do. If they don’t make enough loans in low-income, predominantly minority neighborhoods, they get accused of “redlining,” and are subject to sanctions under politically-correct laws like the Community Reinvestment Act, which contributed to the financial crisis by pressuring lenders to make risky mortgage loans.

But if they do make such loans, they get accused of “reverse redlining,” and get sued by the liberal special-interest groups and municipalities that encouraged them to make such loans during the mortgage bubble. Baltimore and various borrowers have also brought “reverse redlining” lawsuits against banks.

The Washington Post reported that bond-rating agencies like Moody’s and Fitch are now getting sued, too, for “reverse redlining,” under the theory that they encouraged risky loans to low-income minorities (who subsequently regretted taking out those loans) by giving respectable ratings to the mortgage-backed securities produced by packaging those mortgage loans. The plaintiffs include the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, which has been pressuring lenders to make risky loans to low-income minorities for years. They blame the ratings-agencies for allowing lenders to make loans to minorities with “insufficient borrower income levels.”

Don’t Scapegoat Free Markets

by Hans Bader on October 22, 2008 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal

Even the liberal Washington Post (which has endorsed the more liberal candidate in every presidential election since 1952) points out that the “free market” is not to blame for the recent financial meltdown – a point also made in the conservative Washington Examiner and the liberal Village Voice.

“The market that failed was not exactly free,” notes its editorial:

The deregulation of U.S. financial markets did not reflect only the narrow ideology of a particular party or administration. And the problem with the U.S. economy, more than lack of regulation, has been government’s failure to control systemic risks that government itself helped to create. We are not witnessing a crisis of the free market but a crisis of distorted markets.

Bailout Bill Just Got Worse, But Congress May Approve It Without Reading It, Based on Misleading Claims

by Hans Bader on September 29, 2008 · 2 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk

The bailout bill has been larded up with additional welfare that will increase its cost, but the House will likely approve it today without even reading the bill, which had already expanded to more than 100 pages last night.  Worse, some conservative lawmakers may vote for it based on the misleading claim that it contains no welfare for delinquent and defaulting borrowers who are now facing the consequences of years of living beyond their means.

The Associated Press, which didn’t bother to read the bill before reporting on it, claimed today that “not in the bill” is “help for troubled homeowners.”  (See Martin Crutsinger, Associated Press, “Rescue Bill Includes More Oversight, Insurance Option,” Washington Examiner, Sept. 29, 2008, at page 14).  In reality, the bill includes provisions that allow some irresponsible borrowers to get not only their interest but also their principal reduced, and that expand a government program that helps defaulting borrowers cut their mortgage payments.  But the Washington Examiner, which wisely opposed larding up the bailout bill, has today reluctantly come out in favor of the bailout as a necessary evil, after reporting on page 1 that the “$700B bill contains no” welfare for defaulting borrowers.  (The Examiner earlier chronicled how government handouts and regulations helped spawn the mortgage crisis). 

Michelle Malkin has an excellent post explaining the many ways that the bailout shafts taxpayers, and endangers the long run health of the economy.  She notes that Section 109 of the bill includes debt forgiveness, requiring the Treasury Department to consent to “reasonable requests” not only “for mortgage term extensions” and “rate reductions” but also “principal write-downs.”  Similarly costly give-aways are authorized in Sections 110 and 124 of the bill.  Section 107 of the bill mandates affirmative-action in contracting, through cumbersome requirements we earlier discussed.

Freedom Works lists 10 good reasons to oppose the bailout.

John Berlau explains how the bill may harm the economy.  The bill may lead to more inflation and future bubbles.  The bailout ignores cheaper alternatives (see here, here, and here) and how repealing regulations might reduce the need for a bailout.  It leaves intact regulations and affordable housing mandates that spawned the current crisis.

Bailout Bills, Illegal Aliens, and Weird Lending Practices

by Hans Bader on September 24, 2008 · 1,268 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Politics as Usual

The proposed $700 billion bailout is “dangerous, inflationary, unnecessary, and unconstitutional,” funds left-wing special-interest groups, ignores less costly ways of propping up financial markets, and fails to consider regulatory reforms that might reduce the need for a bailout.  It’s not clear why we should trust federal officials with $700 billion to buy up bad loans, without any clear standards or judicial oversight, given that governmental incompetence and government regulations (such as affordable housing mandates) helped spawn the mortgage crisis.  Many economists oppose the proposed bailout.

But some lending practices are hard to explain.  Why did so many lenders make loans to illegal aliens without steady jobs, who are now defaulting by the thousands, as Michelle Malkin notes?  Is it because of the societal (and governmental) obsession with diversity?

When I and my wife, a legal alien, bought our house, the mortgage company told me that if my wife were an illegal alien, rather than legal, we would have qualified for certain loan programs with big banks.  But because she was a legal alien waiting for her green-card (which she had recently applied for), we didn’t qualify.

Mark Krikorian, an activist against illegal immigration, argues that “we’re in this mess, ultimately, because our political elites thought it was good social policy to encourage banks to give mortgages to uncreditworthy people, resulting in what Sailer months ago called the “Diversity Recession” (if this doesn’t work, make that the Diversity Depression). In other words, if poor people in general, or blacks or Hispanics in particular, were less likely to be approved for a mortgage, the only possible reason was racism or classism or whatever. Thus ‘creditworthiness’ was an illegitimate, dead-white-male concept, like middleclassness. Because, after all, isn’t everyone entitled to credit?”

Another strange lending practice also popped up when I purchased a home.  I ultimately left my wife off the mortgage entirely, because I was told that since she had no credit history (despite being thrifty and having savings and no debts), putting her on the mortgage would actually get us a worse, higher interest rate than if I alone applied (I received a rate of 5%, a low rate by historical standards).

Why on Earth were we treated as worse off if my wife co-signed the loan, which makes no sense economically?  It’s not like having her on the loan would have made me any poorer or less able to pay.

People I’ve talked to have theorized that it is a byproduct of two things: (a) discrimination lawsuits, and (b) courts’ indulgence towards junk science.

If the bank gave loans to white people like my wife with no credit, or bad credit, the bank would later look bad if was sued for discrimination, even if it was innocent.  If a “fair-housing” group later sued the bank accusing it of discrimination, supported by a misleading “regression analysis” of the bank’s lending decisions, the bank could end up having to explain, at great expense, why it loaned money to my wife, but not to many minority borrowers who also had no credit or bad credit (never mind that my wife would have had a co-signor with good credit — me).

Why should such misleading regression analysis matter?  The Supreme Court may have opened the door to such junk science in its Bazemore decision, which allows plaintiffs to bring discrimination lawsuits based on obviously flawed statistics, such as regression analyses, as long as the plaintiff claims that the analysis includes all “major” variables, even if “minor” variables that also matter are deliberately left out, unless the defendant can prove that even major variables have been omitted.