paper about MBS

To document the leverage of the gses figure 1-2 below

Info iconThis preview shows pages 24–26. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: To document the leverage of the GSEs, Figure 1-2 below graphs the ratio of total assets on the balance sheet divided by the shareholder equity of the combined Fannie and Freddie (dashed line). The figure takes as a starting point the date of the 1992 legislation that set the capital requirements, and continues the ratio until the end of 2007. (Note that by the end of 2008, shareholder equity had gone negative, and the GSEs were taken into conservatorship.) Over this period, the GSE leverage ratios generally ranged between values of 20 to 40 whereas the commercial banking sector had ratios of 10 to 15. The only match to emerge for GSE leverage was in the form of investment banks, especially during 2003-2007 -- a competitive race to the bottom that we will explain in detail in Chapter 3. Figure 1-2: Leverage Ratios of GSEs Source: FHFA However, these ratios do not tell the entire story. As shown by Figure 1-1, most of the credit risk of GSEs is in the form of guarantees of defaults on mortgages sold to MBS investors. These guarantees do not appear on the balance sheet of the GSEs. As a useful exercise, the solid line in Figure 1-2 sums up all of the credit risk that is contained in both their mortgage portfolios and their credit guarantees of MBS (i.e., the “credit” numerator is the sum of their on-balance sheet assets plus their outstanding MBS). This is roughly equivalent to what the banking sector 23 does when it holds “whole loan” mortgages (i.e., the mortgages themselves, and not MBS) and hedges the interest rate risk in those mortgages. The numbers are simply startling. The credit-based leverage ratios now range between levels of 50 to 100 over the period. 7 Even more troublesome was the GSEs’ behavior from 2002 onwards. As regulators became more aware of the mere size of the GSEs, coupled with accounting scandals in 2003 and 2004, there was a general recognition that their size and leverage had to be curtailed. And, in fact, there was some apparent success. From the end of 2001 to 2007, the “official” leverage ratio dropped from 38 to 23 and the portfolio stopped growing. But the credit-based leverage ratio that also included the off-balance sheet guarantees – the total credit risk divided by shareholder equity shown in Figure 1-2 -- barely budged from 72 to 69. As Figure 1-1 shows, the GSEs had simply replaced growth in their mortgage portfolios with growth in guarantees of MBS. 1.5 One Big Fat Subsidy The mortgage credit risk of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined grew at an astonishing 16% (11%) annual growth rate from 1980 (1992) through 2007. We saw that this growth was financed using borrowed money and levels of leverage far in excess of other financial institutions. Why would debt investors finance such growth?...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page24 / 151

To document the leverage of the GSEs Figure 1-2 below...

This preview shows document pages 24 - 26. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online