Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bernanke's Speech Lays Groundwork for Nationalization of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
Minyanville ^ | March 4, 2008 | Kevin Depew

Posted on 03/04/2008 2:52:07 PM PST by hripka

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, in a speech this morning in Orlando, FL on "Reducing Preventable Mortgage Foreclosures," reportedly urged lenders to forgive portions of mortgages held by homeowners at risk of defaulting, according to mainstream media reports. That's one way to look at it, but it actually misses the entire point of his speech.

In the speech Bernanke outlines the grim path ahead for individuals besieged by declining home values and rising mortgage payment resets. This year about 1.5 million loans, representing more than 40 percent of the outstanding stock of subprime Adjustable Rate Mortgages, are scheduled to reset. According to the Federal Reserve, the estimated payment adjustments upon reset will result in an average monthly payment of $1,500, a 10% increase. The fear, a very real fear, is a cascade of defaults that puts additional downward pressure on home prices and forces continued risk aversion on the part of mortgage lenders.

"This situation calls for a vigorous response," Bernanke said. "With low or negative equity, as I have mentioned, a stressed borrower has less ability (because there is no home equity to tap) and less financial incentive to try to remain in the home."

Consequently, according to Bernanke, principal reductions that restore some equity for the homeowner may be a relatively more effective means of avoiding delinquency and foreclosure. In other words, adjust the mortgage principal downward to reflect the declining home value.

Wait a minute, wouldn't that put yet more pressure on home prices in areas where a significant number of homeowners seek and receive principal writedowns? It sure would. Moreover, as Bernanke notes, "Lenders tell us that they are reluctant to write down principal. They say that if they were to write down the principal and house prices were to fall further, they could feel pressured to write down principal again." And of course, on the off chance home prices rise the lender would not share in the gains.

So what is this speech about? Is it really about urging principal writedowns that even Bernanke himself admits probably won't work, or is something else going on? We're going to go out on a limb and say, "something else." The real conclusion is reached at the very end of Bernanke's speech:

"The government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), likewise could do a great deal to address the current problems in housing and the mortgage market," Bernanke said. "New capital-raising by the GSEs, together with congressional action to strengthen the supervision of these companies, would allow Fannie and Freddie to expand significantly the number of new mortgages that they securitize."

That almost sounds like it would be a good thing. In at least one sense, it would be a good thing, but only by default. Bernanke concludes; "With few alternative mortgage channels available today, such action would be highly beneficial to the economy." That's certainly true, but only in a grimly ironic sense. It's government-enabled expansion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to a situation where there are "few alternative mortgage channels available today" in the first place.

So Bernanke's ultimate conclusion is this: "I urge the Congress and the GSEs to take the steps necessary to allow more potential homebuyers access to mortgage credit at reasonable terms. " It takes either a massive degree of denial or a broad imagination to accept that sentence at face value. What Bernanke is really urging is the full-scale nationalization of the GSE's.

We can continue to pretend that these companies are going to be just fine, but the reality is it is impossible to fit together the pieces - raising massive amounts of new capital in the face of a yet-to-peak-wave of mortgage resets and housing price declines while simultaneously expanding their mortgage securitizations - without taking what Bernanke calls "congressional action to strengthen the supervision of these companies" to mean,essentially, nationalization of the housing market.

Fannie and Freddie stocks are down about 6% so far today. Perhaps the reality is now setting in that nationalization doesn't benefit shareholders.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bailout; bankrupt; bernanke; fanniemae; fed; fnm; fre; freddiemac; gambling; gse; housing; mortgage; nationalization; socialism
Nationalization Alert!
1 posted on 03/04/2008 2:52:08 PM PST by hripka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hripka

Housing gambler bailout ping


2 posted on 03/04/2008 2:58:22 PM PST by Proud_USA_Republican (We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Halgr

Nationalization Alert!


3 posted on 03/04/2008 2:59:04 PM PST by nicmarlo (A vote for McRino is a false mandate for McShamnesty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hripka

Let’s invent words and put them in Bernanke’s mouth.


4 posted on 03/04/2008 3:01:28 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hripka

From Bernake today:

“Lenders tell us that they are reluctant to write down principal. They say that if they were to write down the principal and house prices were to fall further, they could feel pressured to write down principal again. Moreover, were house prices instead to rise subsequently, the lender would not share in the gains. In an environment of falling house prices, however, whether a reduction in the interest rate is preferable to a principal writedown is not immediately clear. Both types of modification involve a concession of payments, are susceptible to additional pressures to write down again, and result in the same payments to the lender if the mortgage pays to maturity. The fact that most mortgages terminate before maturity either by prepayment or default may favor an interest rate reduction. However, as I have noted, when the mortgage is “under water,” a reduction in principal may increase the expected payoff by reducing the risk of default and foreclosure.”
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

Mish’s site.

I’m going to borrow to the hilt, blow the cash, spend my money, ignore moral hazard and come into the 21st C.

Why oh why oh why did I think being frugal and careful and honest was a good policy!!!


5 posted on 03/04/2008 3:04:37 PM PST by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hripka

I just shake my head as I recall the flaming hoops I had to jump through to get a CP loan from Countrywide in 1998.


6 posted on 03/04/2008 3:04:41 PM PST by shove_it (and have a nice day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hripka
Consequently, according to Bernanke, principal reductions that restore some equity for the homeowner may be a relatively more effective means of avoiding delinquency and foreclosure. In other words, adjust the mortgage principal downward to reflect the declining home value.

BS, let them sue their real estate brokers and appraisers if they were lied to. Otherwise suck it up.

7 posted on 03/04/2008 3:04:47 PM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

It’s only a matter of time before most people are paying rent to the government. You can’t truly own real property: if you don’t pay the taxes on it, it can be foreclosed upon. It is never truly yours.


8 posted on 03/04/2008 3:05:02 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ("It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hripka
California Single Family Median Home Prices

Sure prices are higher than they were four years ago and before.

The problem is all of the mortgages signed at higher prices.

9 posted on 03/04/2008 3:05:12 PM PST by hripka (There are a lot of smart people out there in FReeperLand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hripka
I say nationalize the Fed.

Oh wait ... it kinda sorta already is nationalized.

But then so are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Why are so-called sophisticated investors so easily conned?

These were the same idiots who believed that the deregulation of the energy business was a true deregulation rather than just a scam for letting middlemen gouge the consumer.

10 posted on 03/04/2008 3:05:50 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hripka
"I urge the Congress and the GSEs to take the steps necessary to allow more potential homebuyers access to mortgage credit at reasonable terms. "

Great, why not just declare homeownership a constitutionally protected right and give everyone a house? After all, what he's suggesting here is legislatively protecting stupidity and risk-taking.

11 posted on 03/04/2008 3:06:24 PM PST by Hoffer Rand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hripka
What’s a couple of trillion more added to the national debt in a noble cause? After all, we have a compassionate “conservative” at the helm of our great nation and he doesn’t want to see his dear subjects thrown out onto the streets.
12 posted on 03/04/2008 3:06:37 PM PST by trane250
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

Bernanke:

“In my view, we could also reduce preventable foreclosures if investors acting in their own self interests were to permit servicers to write down the mortgage liabilities of borrowers by accepting a short payoff in appropriate circumstances. For example, servicers could accept a principal writedown by an amount at least sufficient to allow the borrower to refinance into a new loan from another source. A writedown that is sufficient to make borrowers eligible for a new loan would remove the downside risk to investors of additional writedowns or a re-default. This arrangement might include a feature that allows the original investors to share in any future appreciation, as recently suggested, for example, by the Office of Thrift Supervision.”

(Mish: My Comment: This idea is beyond stupid. Please see Postpone But Don’t Forget for more details.)
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/


13 posted on 03/04/2008 3:07:57 PM PST by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Somebody better figure something out. It ridiculously difficult to get a short sale thru, subsequently there will be lots of foreclosed properties applying even more pressure to drive prices down. Plus, the lenders for purchases are getting to be as tight as a bull’s a$$ in fly time.


14 posted on 03/04/2008 3:08:03 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ("It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hripka

Did I mention that the crisis is contained? Good.


15 posted on 03/04/2008 3:09:12 PM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder (We've checked, and all your zeroes are OK. We're still working on your ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy
>>if you don’t pay the taxes on it,
>>it can be foreclosed upon. It is never truly yours.

“Usus Fructus”

The illusion of private property creates the reality of property taxes.

Clever Romans.

16 posted on 03/04/2008 3:13:42 PM PST by Etoo (I regret that I have but one screen name to sacrifice for my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hripka
I'm not convinced. Also, simply can't get past the remark about fannie and freddie being the reason the subprime bubble burst. that's oversimplification to the point of poetic license.

Maybe the writer is a little younger; there's not even a hint of "nationalization" in the air. Maybe if unemployment hits 30% it might talked about.

Hope I'm right.

17 posted on 03/04/2008 3:14:18 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (the model prescribes the required behavior. disincentives ensure compliance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy
It’s only a matter of time before most people are paying rent to the government. You can’t truly own real property: if you don’t pay the taxes on it, it can be foreclosed upon. It is never truly yours.

this place is starting to get freaky.

18 posted on 03/04/2008 3:16:17 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (the model prescribes the required behavior. disincentives ensure compliance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Etoo
>>if you don’t pay the taxes on it,
>>it can be foreclosed upon. It is never truly yours.

Couldn't you also say, "If you pay taxes on it, it is never truly yours." ?

19 posted on 03/04/2008 3:16:30 PM PST by hripka (There are a lot of smart people out there in FReeperLand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Let’s invent words and put them in Bernanke’s mouth.

Where is a Sovereign Wealth Fund when you need it?

20 posted on 03/04/2008 3:21:50 PM PST by hripka (There are a lot of smart people out there in FReeperLand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Proud_USA_Republican

Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind!


21 posted on 03/04/2008 3:23:05 PM PST by Chili Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hripka

or even simpler......you rent it from the government.


22 posted on 03/04/2008 3:24:23 PM PST by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hripka
The catch-all is to say that the government endows us with ours rights - that they are only rights because the government recognizes them. ED is the 990th cut to the tattered remains of property rights; we are all merely renters (those of us who "own" our homes simply skipping the middle-man and paying directly to Mother Samantha).

What a sad decline from the vision of the founders, where our rights were endowed upon us at the moment of our individual creation, and that the government is only legitimate if it recognizes and respects those natural rights.

So, after a few hundred year experiment, the net result is that we basically got rid of the swords and watery maidens.

23 posted on 03/04/2008 3:32:07 PM PST by M203M4 (True Universal Suffrage: Pets of dead illegal-immigrant felons voting Democrat (twice))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy

I think you’re right, unfortunately, HD. It’s only a matter of time.


24 posted on 03/04/2008 3:42:17 PM PST by nicmarlo (A vote for McRino is a false mandate for McShamnesty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sheana

Whereas I agree with the above comments, disgust, distrust, etc., perhaps there is a point of practicality we should look at.

If a mortgage holder would look realistically at what the property will be worth 6 or 8 months after foreclosure (it takes a while to foreclose, take possession, advertise for sale and complete the sale), put that number on the value of the property and reduce the principal of the loan to that number, here would be the advantages.

First, the mortgage holder will not get any more than that number after foreclosure.

Second, the mortgage holder does not have to take possession, which has legal expenses.

Third, the property will not go to ruin as it will during a 6 months or more standing empty.

Third, the mortgage holder would still be collecting interest on something, rather than a negative cash flow (expensed involved in protecting, advertising, selling, etc.)

The comments made by the posters above certainly are correct in theory in a properly functioning economic system but that is not where we are today.

It is called cutting your losses. So what is the best way to do that? Reduce the principal or have thousands of empty decaying properties on your hands?

I believe the banks should reduce the principal on the loans for their own benefit, the hell with the debtor. Neither of them deserve any sympathy, but the banks and other mortgage holders need to do what is best for their stockholders and depositors.

CSSJR

If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor’s right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.


25 posted on 03/04/2008 3:45:31 PM PST by woodbutcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: hripka
the estimated payment adjustments upon reset will result in an average monthly payment of $1,500, a 10% increase.

So why is this a crisis that I, Joe Taxpayer, should pay for, just because some people bought homes where a measly 10% increase in their house payment sends them over the cliff?!!!

26 posted on 03/04/2008 3:54:41 PM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Sounds like we are going to use popular socialism to fix business scoialism....yikes...


27 posted on 03/04/2008 3:56:44 PM PST by UCFRoadWarrior (Anyone Notice....But It Is Only The Low-Rated Talk Radio Hosts That Support McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy
It ridiculously difficult to get a short sale thru

Be patient. Wait a few months and reality will begin to set in. Right now, lenders are just reeling with processing the volume of foreclosures. Soon they will have to get serious about getting them off the books. I'm currently negotiating a price of 95K on a property that appraised at 550K three years ago and I think I have a 60% chance of getting it because the lender has 6,000 properties now and it's just the beginning.

28 posted on 03/04/2008 4:33:40 PM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
So why is this a crisis that I, Joe Taxpayer, should pay for, just because some people bought homes where a measly 10% increase in their house payment sends them over the cliff?!!!

It's not just the payment. The widespread loss of equity as a result of this problem is affecting everyone. I don't think the gov't should intervene. I'm just pointing out that the problem is wide reaching and affects the entire economy and everyone

29 posted on 03/04/2008 4:38:24 PM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hripka

One problem is all of the mortgages signed at higher prices. Another problem, comes from all the people who drained their home of equity through mortgage equity extraction, and are upside-down on their loans, now that house values have gone back down.


30 posted on 03/04/2008 4:54:44 PM PST by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

The point stands. Either property is yours — with no strings attached — or it is not yours.

I own a stapler. So long as I can keep from being robbed and having it stolen, I own the stapler. But if you stop paying government required fees on your land and home, they will take it away from you.

It is a simple issue of property rights. By paying taxes, the government ALLOWS you some control over a piece of property that you have purchased. That is all.


31 posted on 03/04/2008 4:58:20 PM PST by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

Oh, you are so correct, and, hopefully, here on FR, you are preaching to the choir. But I fear not.

‘Taxes are necessary’ That is the mantra. Taxes are evil, a neccessary evil, but evil none the less. The Boston Tea Party, as far as I know, was held because of a 5% tax rate.

WHERE ARE WE NOW?????

It is defensible that we give back 50% of what we earn to Gov’t. Fed, State, County, Local. 50%? Where is the Tea?

Our current condition goes back to FDR and the ‘National Emergency’ still in effect. We have a Gov’t that pays lip service to the Constitution to keep us in line long enough to steal all that should be ours. Including our homes.


32 posted on 03/04/2008 5:11:20 PM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

How are Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae not already nationalized?


33 posted on 03/04/2008 5:46:00 PM PST by tbw2 ("Humanity's Edge" - conservative Sci-fi - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

Exactly my point.


34 posted on 03/04/2008 8:19:13 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

Welllll

I think the author here is stretching it a little....

(but some of us agree with the substance)


35 posted on 03/05/2008 12:14:41 PM PST by Halgr (Once a Marine, always a Marine - Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Halgr

Okay......as of now it’s a “stretch.”

The we know the end game is going in this direction.

Don’t get too focused on the technicalities, lol!

j/k


36 posted on 03/05/2008 12:45:56 PM PST by nicmarlo (A vote for McRino is a false mandate for McShamnesty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson