{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

National post on a new york times reporter

Info iconThis preview shows pages 5–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
National Post , July 11, 2008 On September 30, 1999, a New York Times reporter, Steven Holmes published a piece titled “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending”. The crux of the story was that Fannie Mae was lowering its credit standards, which in turn would increase home ownership. Franklin Raines, the then Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Fannie Mae, is quoted in the article: “Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements. Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'' Consistent with sound journalism, the story analyzed the potential consequences of Fannie Mae’s foray into riskier lending. Quite presciently, the author Steven Holmes sounded an alarm that Fannie Mae was taking on large amounts of new risk, which in good times would not cause problems, but in a downturn could lead to a massive government bailout. The article also quotes Peter Wallison, an American Enterprise Institute scholar and frequent critic of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), in particular, the two largest ones, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: “From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us…If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
4 A decade later, we know how it all turned out: the worst financial crisis since the 1930s and bailouts so large that we no longer consider the savings and loan debacle to have been much of a financial crisis. This is not to argue that all of the blame should be placed on the doorstep of Fannie and Freddie. There is plenty of blame to go around at other large, complex financial institutions including Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Wachovia, and Citigroup, among others. But, nevertheless, Fannie and Freddie do deserve special attention. Currently, as of August 2010, the Treasury has injected a total of $148.2 billion into these entities. And it doesn’t look like their financial health is going to get any better. Even putting aside all future foreclosures and portfolio losses, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now sitting on over 150,000 foreclosed homes. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that an additional $65 billion may be required to keep them afloat until 2019. The CBO has further estimated that the total taxpayer losses might ultimately reach the neighborhood of an astounding $350 billion. Yet Fannie and Freddie barely register as news. In the most sweeping financial legislation since the 1930s, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 barely mentions them, simply calling for a study of how to reform them.
Background image of page 6
Image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}