Whom do you trust? A bond salesman or government official?

Article Highlights

  • Before their failure, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had high leverage and very small capital ratios.

    Tweet This

  • Even in the process of guaranteeing Fannie & Freddie's debt, the US gov. still formally denied that it was a guarantee.

    Tweet This

  • Ordinary Americans will continue to be taxed to pay off the interest and principal due to Fannie and Freddie's creditors.

    Tweet This

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the notorious government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), had before their failure very high leverage and very small capital ratios, with credit risk of about 60 times their capital. Yet together they were able to borrow $5 trillion from buyers of their bonds and mortgage-backed securities around the world. How were they able to get people to buy this massive amount of their debt?

You know the answer: investors did not view it as Fannie and Freddie's own debt, but rather as an obligation of the United States Treasury.

If we think of this issue as it was discussed before Fannie and Freddie's financial collapse and taxpayer bailout, there were two competing assertions, one prominently represented by bond salesmen, and the other by government officials. Whose word, as an investor or a taxpayer, would you trust - a bond salesman or a government official?

Bond salesmen all over the world said something like this to their investing customers: "You can't go wrong buying this GSE debt, because it's really debt of the U.S. government - even if Fannie or Freddie get into trouble, the government will make sure that all interest and principal will be paid. And you get more yield on GSE debt than on U.S. Treasury debt, so it's more reward and no risk!"

The opposite position was taken by a notably GSE-loving senior Congressman, Barney Frank, later Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. He memorably said about whether GSE debt was backed by the government: "There is no guarantee. There's no explicit guarantee. There's no implicit guarantee. There's no wink-and-nod guarantee. Invest and you're on your own."

Switching political parties and branches of government, a Republican Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, said this about Fannie and Freddie's debt: "We do not believe there is any government guarantee, and we go out of our way to say there is not a government guarantee. We need to be on guard against this perception. It is a perception. It is not, in our view, a reality."

But needless to say, it really was a guarantee and it was a reality, alas. Ordinary Americans are and will continue to be taxed to pay off every penny of interest and principal due to the domestic and foreign creditors of Fannie and Freddie.

In short, the bond salesmen were absolutely right, and the most charitable thing you can say about the government officials was that they were entirely wrong.

Writing of the mounting financial problems of Fannie and Freddie in 2008, then - Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson tells us: "Treasury had been getting nervous calls from officials of foreign countries ... Foreign investors held more than $1 trillion of the debt issued or guaranteed by the GSEs, with big shares held in Japan, China and Russia. To them, if we let Fannie or Freddie fail...that would be no different from expropriation. They had bought these securities in the belief that the GSEs were backed by the U.S. government. They wanted to know if the U.S. would stand behind this implicit guarantee."

Paulson issued instructions: "Make sure to the extent we can say it that the U.S. government is standing behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." To what extent did it stand behind them - or more precisely behind their debt? Completely. It was a rather far cry from "Invest and you're on your own."

Paulson further relates a subsequent conversation with Wang Qishan, China's vice premier for financial and economic affairs: "I always said we'd live up to our obligations, I reminded Wang."

So indeed they did. But even in the process of in fact guaranteeing Fannie and Freddie's debt, the U.S. government still formally denied that it was a guarantee. The agreement by which the Treasury put taxpayers' money into Fannie and Freddie in order to protect their creditors provided that the bailout was "not intended and shall not be deemed to constitute a guarantee."

Why did government officials want to deny that what they obviously intended to do, and what they obviously were doing, was what it was?

Because they wanted to keep Fannie and Freddie's debt off the government's books. In this they succeeded and continue to succeed. Thus the bailout of 2008 reflected the 1968 legislation which created the fateful GSE structure, the purpose of which was to get Fannie's debt off the government's books.

We couldn't have the government honestly telling us how big its debt is, could we?

Alex Pollock is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. He was president and CEO of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago from 1991 to 2004.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Alex J.
Pollock
  • Alex J. Pollock is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he studies and writes about housing finance; government-sponsored enterprises, including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks; retirement finance; and banking and central banks. He also works on corporate governance and accounting standards issues.


    Pollock has had a 35-year career in banking and was president and CEO of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago for more than 12 years immediately before joining AEI. A prolific writer, he has written numerous articles on financial systems and is the author of the book “Boom and Bust: Financial Cycles and Human Prosperity” (AEI Press, 2011). He has also created a one-page mortgage form to help borrowers understand their mortgage obligations.


    The lead director of CME Group, Pollock is also a director of the Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation and the chairman of the board of the Great Books Foundation. He is a past president of the International Union for Housing Finance.


    He has an M.P.A. in international relations from Princeton University, an M.A. in philosophy from the University of Chicago, and a B.A. from Williams College.


  • Phone: 202.862.7190
    Email: apollock@aei.org
  • Assistant Info

    Name: Emily Rapp
    Phone: (202) 419-5212
    Email: emily.rapp@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image Getting it right: US national security policy and al Qaeda since 2011
image Net neutrality rundown: What the NPRM means for you
image The Schuette decision
image Snatching failure from victory in Afghanistan
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
    MON
  • 22
    TUE
  • 23
    WED
  • 24
    THU
  • 25
    FRI
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Event Registration is Closed
Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.