Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives July 16, 2002*

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.

One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

See transcript at: http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=323&Itemid=60

 Many politicians, some federal regulators, and many vocal media commentators claim that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and its regulatory evolution had nothing to do with the creation of the U.S. housing and mortgage bubble. It seems that, at some point in the near future, an objective review of the facts may require a revision of the claim that the CRA was not a significant factor in the creation of the U.S. housing and mortgage bubble.¹

The Community Reinvestment Act: Its Evolution and New Challenges*

A speech by Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke 

At the Community Affairs Research Conference, Washington, D.C.

March 30, 2007

From the third paragraph below the heading: The Evolution of The CRA

Even as these developments were occurring, extensive change was taking place in the financial services sector. During the 1980s and 1990s, technological progress significantly improved data collection and information processing, which led to the development and widespread use of credit-scoring models and the availability of generic credit history scores. Deregulation also contributed to the changes in the marketplace. Notably, the lifting of prohibitions against interstate banking was followed by an increased pace of industry consolidation. Also, the preemption of usury laws on home loans created more scope for risk-based pricing of mortgages. Securitization of affordable housing loans expanded, as did the secondary market for those loans, in part reflecting a 1992 law that required the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to devote a percentage of their activities to meeting affordable housing goals (HUD, 2006). A generally strong economy and lower interest rates also helped improved access to credit by lower-income households.

* Why I dissented from The Majority Report of The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission > http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-wallison-why-i-dissented/AF6220AF-4A4E-43E8-A393-1700F613CEF8.html

Also see Wall Street Journal online article, What Fannie and Freddie Knew: How the Toxic Twins Turbocharged The Housing Bubble

December 22, 2011 at: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204791104577110643650732030-lMyQjAxMTAxMDIwMjEyNDIyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email 

B of A Settles Lending Case By Ruth Simon and Brent Kendall

Wall Street Journal ~ December 22, 2011

 

Mr. Melton Commented: BofA just did not do due diligence and helped CW hide it's wrong doing and would have gotten away except for the housing mess.

 

Reply To: Mr. Melton, Please note that the allegations in the article claim that most of the overcharging took place "from 2004 through 2008, at the height of the housing bubble". During that time Bank of America was actually, in many ways, a competitor of Countrywide Financial.  During that time Countrywide Financial had borrowed significant amounts of money from B of A, and Countrywide had a large authorized line-of-credit with B of A.

 

Toward the end of Countrywide's independent existence, executives at Countrywide, and most significantly Angelo Mozilo, claimed Countrywide had insignificant sub-prime exposure and that the company was in strong financial condition. Not long after the last time they made that claim Countrywide exercised the balance of the authorized B of A line of credit. I have always thought that when B of A bought Countrywide, B of A did it, in significant measure, to protect the B of A loans which B of A made to Countrywide without any knowledge (apparently) of what a snake-pit Countrywide actually was.

 

It's interesting that you claim that B of A participated in the alleged activities while in fact it was a competitor of, and a banker for, Countrywide, yet you don't question why Countrywide's Board-of-Directors and the CFO at Countrywide weren't more aware of the alleged abuses, and why they weren’t more actively engaged in monitoring and bridling-in the alleged abuses.

 

What kinds of people sat on Countrywide's Board-of-Directors almost up-to the very end? Were they unsophisticated rubes with no understanding of mortgage finance and no understanding of what was going on? If you think that might be the case, key-words-search: "The Tragedy of Countrywide Financial and Angelo Mozilo Muckety".[1] Notice that Kathleen Brown,[2] the very financially savvy and well credentialed sister of then California Attorney General - now Governor of California - Jerry Brown sat on the Countrywide Board of Directors, as did former (under President Bill Clinton) Director of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Affairs (HUD) Henry Cisneros [see, “The Reckoning: Building Flawed American Dreams” By David Streitfeld & Gretchen Morgensen, NYT 10/18/2008.][3]

 

Maybe the abrupt retirement of former President of Countrywide, Stanford Kurland, (who most considered the obvious 'heir apparent' to CEO Angelo Mozilo) about a year 'before the fall' should have been recognized as a sign that it was time to look more closely at what was going on inside Countrywide Financial. [see, "Former Countrywide No. 2 Sees Opportunities in Troubled Mortgages" By Mathew Padilla - Orange County Register, 6/10/2008].[4]

---

An excerpt from an article which appeared in The Wall Street Journal Opinion Section – December 8, 2011

Subsidizing Wall Street to Buy Chinese Solar Panels*

By T.J. RODGERS

At the end of the recently released film "Margin Call," the chairman of the fictional investment bank that triggered the mortgage-backed securities meltdown sits in his executive dining room, looking down on the Hudson River sunset while enjoying a steak and an expensive bottle of Bordeaux. Why not? He has just saved billions for his shareholders by dumping the firm's entire "toxic loan" portfolio in one hectic trading day. Just before giving a bonus to the brilliant analyst who foresaw the meltdown only hours in advance, the chairman predicts, "There's going to be a lot of money made coming out of this mess."  

Wall Street understands how to make money, up-market or down. "Margin Call" may fuel Occupy movement ire, but in creating mortgage-backed securities, Wall Street did nothing other than facilitate home-financing access to the next tier of less-qualified home buyers, as demanded by every president since Bill Clinton. After that, the bankers did exactly what their shareholders wanted: bundle those risky loans into securities, sell them to lock in the profits, and dump the risk right back onto the federal government—where it belonged.

My purpose is not to debate the morality of mortgage-backed securities but to update the Law of Unintended Consequences with the corollary Law of Misguided Subsidies: Whenever Washington disrupts a market by dumping subsidies into it, Wall Street will find a way to pocket a majority of the money while the intended subsidy beneficiaries are harmed by the resulting market turmoil.

The recent crash in mortgage-backed securities was a near-repeat of the savings-and-loan crash of the 1980s, in which Washington insured the S&L industry but failed to set limits on high-risk loans. When the bubble burst, Washington paid Wall Street the insurance money while homeowners lost huge sums in real-estate hell. Wall Street understands how to manage risk; the federal government and consumers do not.

---

 

 

The complete article may be seen at:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204903804577082631863392956-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwNTExNDUyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

See an article announcing the Massachusetts Attorney General’s lawsuit against firms in the mortgage industry.

http://realestate.msn.com/blogs/listedblogpost.aspx?post=f996a28d-1b02-4ceb-bf07-ac8483393a03

 

Also, watch this brief video-clip of Georgetown Law Professor Adam Levitin’s testimony before Congress titled, “Federal Regulators Don’t Want to Know: The Blind-Eye Policy” at>

 

The Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) which is mentioned in the lead article is based upon a concept and operating model which was proposed to The Mortgage Bankers Association by the GSE’s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at a Mortgage Bankers Association meeting in the mid-1990’s. The Mortgage Bankers seemed to like the concept, so Fannie and Freddie financed the creation of MERS with a contribution of 2 million dollars each (from Fannie and Freddie). After MERS was created, Fannie and Freddie invited other major mortgage banking entities to join the MERS via an annual subscription arrangement.

 

The structure and the processes in the MERS system seem to have had some “destined to fail” characteristics which would make an interesting case study of ‘management control and audit procedures’. And, the system also raises some questions about the legality of the system’s processes in the context of common law of land title conveyance. See, “Two Faces: Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System’s Land Title Theory” by Professor Christopher L. Peterson at > http://search.earthlink.net/search?q=Two+Faces%3A+Demystifying+the+Mortgage&area=earthlink-ws&channel=sbt_sgin&abtcgid=219&abtli=1

 

In late 2010 in a hearing before a Congressional Banking Committee the acting U.S. Controller of The Currency, John Walsh, stated that results from a multi-agency investigation of MERS would be released in early January of 2011. (The investigation was led by The Office of the Controller of The Currency. I never could find the results of that investigation).

 

A bit off-point, but still interesting, current California Governor, Jerry Brown, was the Attorney General of the State of California from 2007-2011. For much of that same period Jerry Brown’s sister, Kathleen Brown, was a member of the Board-of-Directors of Countrywide Financial [Henry Cisneros former Director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), during President Bill Clinton’s first term in office, was also on the board at Countrywide during that time]. Kathleen Brown resigned from that board of directors shortly after information about the depth of Countrywide’s financial problems became public and only weeks before Bank of America acquired Countrywide. A few months later, when Jerry Brown was elected governor of California, Kathleen Brown almost immediately moved her Goldman Sachs municipal finance consulting office from Los Angeles, CA to Chicago, IL ‘to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest’ with her brother’s gubernatorial administration. (See, “The Tragedy of Countrywide and Angelo Mozilo” at > http://news.muckety.com/2008/06/26/the-tragedy-of-countrywide-financial-and-angelo-mozilo/3712 and see Kathleen Brown's Wikipedia at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Brown