Wednesday, September 24, 2008

By the way. . . .

It is worth remembering that Fannie and Freddie were on someone's radar screen five years ago. As that noted conservative organ The New York Times reported on September 11, 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

Two relevant points from the article. First, this:

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

However, the oversight wasn't tightened. Why would that be? Well, consider this:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Emphasis mine. Much will be decided in the coming days. One thing that has been suggested is limiting compensation for executives of companies that get bailouts. Perhaps the executives aren't the only ones who should have their compensation curtailed. Just sayin'.

(H/T: Powerline)

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Mr D, your analysis doesn't jibe with the "It's all Bush's Fault" mantra of Baraq "I'm for the little people, but I stiff waitresses when I visit Waupun" and his cronies. Please stop trying to print the truth, it's getting in the way......