Housing finance reform: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me

Shutterstock.com

Article Highlights

  • Congress always promises that the latest guarantee proposal will be self-supporting and protect the people from losses.

    Tweet This

  • Gov guarantees suffer from 3 flaws: an inability to price for risk, the resulting asset allocation distortions, and the politicization of risk-taking.

    Tweet This

  • The PATH Act puts the Government Mortgage Complex on notice that its days may be numbered.

    Tweet This

 

In 1992 Congress enacted a bill to regulate Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Called the "Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act" (the Safety and Soundness Act), its ostensible goal was to protect taxpayers.

Yet by 2008, the GSEs required a taxpayer bailout and the affordable housing mandates the bill contained had harmed millions of homeowners.
 
Last month Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Mark Warner (D-VA) introduced the "Housing Finance Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2013" (the Taxpayer Protection Act), which also promises to protect taxpayers, but, like the Safety and Soundness Act, poses a danger to homeowners and taxpayers alike.

Congress always promises that the latest guarantee proposal will be self-supporting and protect the people from losses. Yet taxpayers have repeatedly been fooled--the GSEs, the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the National Flood Insurance program, Social Security, and Medicare being some of the more notable bailouts.

These programs inevitably fail because government guarantees suffer from three flaws: an inability and unwillingness to price for risk, the resulting asset allocation distortions, and the politicization of risk-taking. In the case of the proposed Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation (FMIC), it will inevitably promote pro-cyclical policies that increase leverage during boom periods, creating the very risk the Taxpayer Protection Act purports to protect against.

The bill instead should be called the Government Mortgage Complex Act. It solidifies the federal government‘s grip on the mortgage market and combines crony capitalism for industry supporters and crony socialism for community advocates by providing billions in revenue for each. It would be a replay of the reckless "affordable housing" experiment begun by the government in the early 1990s. This experiment cost America's homeowners trillions of dollars as risky lending for political ends drove the homeownership rate and home prices to unsustainable levels.

The central lesson of the Safety and Soundness Act was that its imposition of wide-ranging affordable housing mandates on the GSEs trumped weak and ineffectual provisions purporting to protect the taxpayers. In a similar fashion, the Taxpayer Protection Act places conflicting "principal duties" on the FMIC. While there is a duty to "minimize any potential long-term negative cost on the taxpayer," this will inevitably take a back seat to its duties to "ensure, to the maximum extent possible a liquid and resilient housing finance market and the availability of mortgage credit." It is also given authority to ensure "access to mortgage credit in the secondary mortgage market" and must consider how its insurance operations "influence mortgage affordability." The housing lobby has a financial interest in making sure this second set of duties is vigorously and fully followed, while taxpayers will be left to fend for themselves.

These lobby groups argue that a government centric housing system is necessary to assure availability, accessibility, affordability, and liquidity. We learned from the last experiment that "availability" means subprime lending, "accessibility" means entitlements, "affordability" means subsidies, and "liquidity" means the availability of government guaranteed credit in good times and bad. For example, availability would require the widespread use of subprime loans with low down payments, low credit-score requirements and high debt-to-income ratios. The result would be a correlated national housing market backed by the taxpayer, substantially increasing the risk of a painful nationwide price correction. Such a system would undermine responsible, sustainable homeownership for all.

Fortunately, the Taxpayer Protection Act has competition. Last week the House Financial Services Committee voted to send the Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners Act of 2013 (PATH Act) to the full House. It provides for a largely free home finance market with a government guarantee limited to federal agencies like the FHA. The Path Act materially reduces the federal government‘s grip on the mortgage market and ends both crony capitalism and socialism.

The PATH Act puts the Government Mortgage Complex on notice that its days may be numbered.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Edward J.
Pinto
  • American Enterprise Institute (AEI) resident fellow Edward J. Pinto is the codirector of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk. He is currently researching policy options for rebuilding the US housing finance sector and specializes in the effect of government housing policies on mortgages, foreclosures, and on the availability of affordable housing for working-class families. Pinto writes AEI’s monthly Housing Risk Watch, which has replaced AEI’s FHA Watch. Along with AEI resident scholar Stephen Oliner, Pinto is the creator and developer of the AEI Pinto-Oliner Mortgage Risk, Collateral Risk, and Capital Adequacy Indexes.


    An executive vice president and chief credit officer for Fannie Mae until the late 1980s, Pinto has done groundbreaking research on the role of federal housing policy in the 2008 mortgage and financial crisis. Pinto’s work on the Government Mortgage Complex includes seminal research papers submitted to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: “Government Housing Policies in the Lead-up to the Financial Crisis” and “Triggers of the Financial Crisis.” In December 2012, he completed a study of 2.4 million Federal Housing Administration (FHA)–insured loans and found that FHA policies have resulted in a high proportion of working-class families losing their homes.

    Pinto has a J.D. from Indiana University Maurer School of Law and a B.A. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

  • Phone: 240-423-2848
    Email: edward.pinto@aei.org
  • Assistant Info

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

What's new on AEI

image The Census Bureau and Obamacare: Dumb decision? Yes. Conspiracy? No.
image A 'three-state solution' for Middle East peace
image Give the CBO long-range tools
image The coming collapse of India's communists
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.

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