Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review March 1, 2001 / 6 Adar, 5761

Amity Shlaes

Amity Shlaes
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

It is time for Fannie and Freddie to grow up

The big issues of mortgage-backed bonds are gaining unfairly from their association with the US government -- THERE is something reassuring about a company being associated with the government. Companies that have such a link, or were founded for public purposes, seem likely to serve the public good. But this often proves a false assumption. The pitfalls are particularly great when it comes to the realm of finance.

Consider the two such hybrid entities that loom over American capital markets, the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. The pair are often touted as the premier examples of felicitous public-private interaction. Even their nicknames, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have a benign ring.

Certainly, the hybrids' histories sound auspicious. The two were created by the government- Fannie during the depression - not to sell mortgages directly to homeowners but to strengthen liquidity in the piecemeal residential mortgage market. They solved the problem by bundling these assets together and securitising them on bond markets.

The virtues of Fannie and Freddie seemed to be reinforced when they were privatised, Fannie in 1970 and Freddie in the 1980s. The message was clear. Government can launch an entity and then free it to expand in the private sector. Except that "expand" is too mild a word. Fannie and Freddie exploded, acquiring by the late 1990s sufficient assets to dwarf those of individual mortgage lenders.

Today their assets are worth several thousand billion - close to the size of interest-bearing Treasury debt held by the public. All along, the pair have advertised heavily: "Our business is the American dream" is Fannie's logo; Freddie's is "We open doors". Such efforts have won them a national reputation as the godparents of home-owning.

These godparents are some of the financial market's most aggressive financial enterprises. They boast that they perform a social service for the home-owning middle class. They are helped in wooing customers by their fabulous credit rating - they are able to borrow at rates more favourable than many competitors and AAA-rated corporations, and only slightly less favourable than those enjoyed by the Treasury. They are listed among the other Fs on the New York Stock Exchange. All in all, quite a privatisation success story.

Except that the success has come in good part because Fannie and Freddie were never completely privatised. As authors Peter Wallison and Bert Ely point out in Nationalizing Market Risk, the giants enjoy a number of advantages over their wholly private competition.

The president appoints members to their boards. The Treasury secretary may invest up to $2.25bn in their securities. Both companies are exempt from state and local taxes. And, most significantly, there is the general feeling that because of their social value and their size, the pair must not be allowed to fail.

Fannie and Freddie play down their public link, swearing they are as much subjects of market discipline as the next fellow. But the markets do not believe them. For one thing, Americans recall the savings and loan bail-out. The proof of investors' faith that the government stands behind Fannie and Freddie is the lower cost of borrowing.

Such power has generated serious concern in Washington, both at the Federal Reserve and Congress. Yet Fannie and Freddie are wealthy enough to strike back: in election 2000 they sought to assure their unique status by pouring more that $4m into political contributions to both parties, up from $1.3m in the prior election cycle. Nor are the pair shy about assailing critics: after private mortgage groups formed a watchdog group - - to monitor them, Fannie slammed it as an "anti-consumer pact".

When Franklin Raines, Fannie's chairman, was mooted as a possible vice-presidential candidate, the press joked that Mr Raines would never accept an offer: he already held a more powerful office. But concerns over Fannie's and Freddie's size are legitimate.

For one thing, the pair may already be distorting markets - luring Americans into homebuying when they might better invest elsewhere. For another, the pair are growing so fast that they now threaten to consume the entire mortgage market, doing the damage of classic monopolies. Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman, has warned about this possibility, noting that the Fannie and Freddie can distort markets by "diverting real resources from other market-determined uses".

And what if the pair get into financial problems, just as lenders including the savings and loans have in the past? Fannie and Freddie's assets are held by so many US banks that their weakening would pose the threat of systemic risk. It is possible they would require a federal bail-out. This would be hard to refuse, and far costlier than the savings and loan rescue, which ran under $200bn.

But the biggest danger is America's emerging federal surplus. Washington is retiring its own debt, so it must hold the surplus in something else: private assets. High on the list of likely purchases are Fannies and Freddies. Governments ought to be able to unload such assets when they are no longer a good investment. But what politician wants to be seen driving down the value of a national home dream machine?

Not that Fannie and Freddie are the only firms facing the danger of increased politicisation in the surplus world. As Mr Greenspan warned, federal investment in private assets "would risk sub-optimal performance by our capital markets, diminished economic efficiency and lower overall standards of living". Still, Fannie and Freddie are evidence of a special double hazard - that of allowing "public-private" entities to become players in financial markets.

JWR contributor Amity Shlaes is a columnist for Financial Times . Her latest book is The Greedy Hand: How Taxes Drive Americans Crazy and What to Do About It. Send your comments by clicking here.


02/27/01: IT's important
02/22/01: The guilty conscience of America's millionaires
02/14/01: The benefits of helping the 'rich'
02/09/01: The Danger and Promise of the Bush Schools Plan
02/05/01: Crack and Compassion
01/31/01: Debt is good
01/29/01: Clueless
01/24/01: A gloomy end for a half-hearted undertaking
01/17/01: The challenge of an ally with its own mind
01/15/01: An unexpected American family portrait
01/10/01: A fitting legacy for America's beloved dictator
01/08/01: The trick of tax 'convenience'
01/03/01: Time to stop blaming Greenspan over taxes
12/11/00: So smart they're dumb
12/06/00: How economic bad news came good for Bush
12/04/00: The Boies factor
11/30/00: "The inevitable demands for recounts erupted like acne…"
11/28/00: Fair play and the rules of the electoral game
11/23/00: The shining prospect beyond a cloudy election
11/21/00: Try the Cleveland model
11/16/00: A surprising winner emerges in the US election
11/09/00: Those powerful expats
11/07/00: What's right for America versus what works
11/02/00: Time to turn off big government's autopilot
10/30/00: Canada beating America in financial sensibility
10/26/00: When progressiveness leads to backwardness
10/24/00: The most accurate poll
10/19/00: The Middle East tells us the hawks were right
10/17/00: The split personalities of America's super rich
10/10/00: 'Equity Rights' or Wake up and Smell the Starbucks
10/04/00: Trapped in the basement of global capitalism
09/21/00: The final act of a grand presidential tragedy
09/21/00: Europeans strike back at the fuel tax monster. Should Americans follow?
09/18/00: First steps to success
09/13/00: America rejects the human rights transplant
09/07/00: Minimum wage, maximum cost
09/05/00: Prudent Al Gore plans some serious spending
08/31/00: A revolution fails to bring power to the people
08/28/00: A reali$tic poll
08/21/00: "I Goofed"
08/16/00: Part of the union, but not part of the party
08/09/00: Silicon Alley Secrets
08/02/00: Radical Republicans warm up for Philadelphia
07/31/00: I'll Cry if I Want To
07/27/00: Cold warrior of the new world
07/25/00: The Estate Tax will drop dead
07/18/00: Shooting down the anti-missile defence myths
07/14/00: A convenient punchbag for America's leaders
07/07/00: How to destroy the pharmaceutical industry
07/05/00: Patriots and bleeding hearts
06/30/00: Candidates beware: New Washington consensus on robust growth stands the old wisdom on its head
06/28/00: White America's flight to educational quality
06/26/00: How Hillary inspired the feminist infobabes

© 2000, Financial Times