Trump administration pushes plan to privatize Fannie, Freddie | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

Trump administration pushes plan to privatize Fannie, Freddie

Associated Press
1635680_web1_1635680-371042afe57546bfa0e5e01f56310b67
Ap
The Fannie Mae headquarters in Washington. The Trump administration has unveiled its plan for ending government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those are the two giant mortgage finance companies that nearly collapsed in the financial crisis 11 years ago and were bailed out by taxpayers at a total cost of $187 billion, Thursday, Sept. 5, 2019.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has proposed its plan for ending government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two giant mortgage finance companies that nearly collapsed in the financial crisis 11 years ago and were bailed out at a total cost to taxpayers of $187 billion.

The administration’s plan calls for returning Fannie and Freddie to private ownership and reducing risk to taxpayers. That while preserving homebuyers’ access to 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages, a pillar of housing finance. The Treasury Department published the plan Thursday and submitted it to President Trump, who called for it in March.

While not prominently in the public eye, the two companies perform a critical role in the housing market. Together they guarantee roughly half of the $10 trillion U.S. home loan market.

Fannie and Freddie, operating under so-called government conservatorships, have become profitable again in the years since the 2008 rescue and have repaid their bailouts in full to the Treasury.

The administration initially looked to Congress for legislation to overhaul the housing finance system and return the companies to private shareholders. But Congress hasn’t acted, and now officials say they will take administrative action for the core change, ending the Fannie and Freddie conservatorships.

The new plan would make the companies privately owned yet government “sponsored” companies again. Their profits would no longer go to the Treasury but would be used to build up their capital bases as a cushion against possible future losses.

WHAT ARE FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC AND WHAT DO THEY DO?

Before the Great Depression of the 1930s, financing for mortgages was mainly provided by life insurance companies, banks and thrifts, with little government support. Fannie was created in 1938 to buy loans issued by the Federal Housing Administration. Freddie was established in 1989.

They are called government-sponsored enterprises. Before they were taken over in 2008, they were private companies but still enjoyed an implicit guarantee that the government would step in and rescue them if they failed. That’s what happened after the collapse of the housing market and the wave of mortgage defaults.

The companies don’t make home loans. They buy them from banks and other lenders, and bundle them into securities, guarantee them against default and sell them to investors. Because the companies are under government control, investors are eager to snap up the “safe” securities.

And because Fannie and Freddie stand behind nearly half of U.S. home loans, they’re important to homeowners and potential buyers though people may not see their footprint.

WHY DOES THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WANT TO END GOVERNMENT CONTROL?

Administration officials say the government should have only a limited role in housing finance, and that the current system leaves taxpayers exposed to potential bailouts again. Some lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, agree with that view.

Senior Treasury officials told reporters Thursday that the government’s far-reaching power in this area means the Federal Housing Finance Authority can determine who gets a home mortgage, the price and terms of the loan, how it is made and then serviced and what happens if a borrower defaults.

The administration’s proposed overhaul of housing finance “will protect taxpayers and help Americans who want to buy a home,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement. “An effective and efficient federal housing finance system will also meaningfully contribute to the continued economic growth under this administration.”

WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSING?

There are nitty-gritty details of housing finance in the plan, but the central change is ending the conservatorships. Officials haven’t given a timeline for the administrative action.

Mark Calabria, the head of the FHFA, indicated recently that it wouldn’t be any time soon, and likely after 2020. Some conditions will have to be met for the companies to be “ready to exit,” he said. They include ensuring the companies have sufficient capital to operate, and to continue on their own in the event of a severe economic downturn.

Other changes outlined in the plan would have to be approved by Congress. They include replacing Fannie and Freddie’s affordable housing goals with more “tailored support” for first-time homebuyers and low- and moderate-income borrowers.

ARE THERE CONCERNS WITH THE NEW APPROACH?

Some experts have expressed concern that the new capital requirements for the companies could cause them to increase their fees for guaranteeing mortgages, potentially raising borrowing costs for homebuyers.

Administration officials acknowledge it’s hard to predict what the impact on borrowing costs would be. But they maintain that by removing government restrictions, the plan would likely expand the supply of mortgages and possibly lower costs.

Categories: Business | Wire stories
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.