By PETER J. WALLISON
On Christmas Eve, when most Americans’ minds were on other things, the Treasury Department announced that it was removing the $400 billion cap from what the administration believes will be necessary to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac solvent. This action confirms that the decade-long congressional failure to more closely regulate these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) will rank for U.S. taxpayers as one of the worst policy disasters in our history.

Fannie and Freddie’s congressional sponsors—some of whom are now leading the administration’s effort to “reform” the financial system—have a lot to answer for. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, sponsored legislation adopted in 2008 that established a new regulatory structure for the GSEs. But by then it was far too late. The GSEs had begun buying risky loans in 1993 to meet the “affordable housing” requirements established under congressional direction by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Most of the damage was done from 2005 through 2007, when Fannie and Freddie were binging on risky mortgages. Back then, Mr. Frank was the bartender, denying that there was any cause for concern, and claiming that he wanted to “roll the dice” on subsidized housing support.

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation that would have established more auditing and oversight of the two agencies. But it was passed out of committee on a partisan vote, and with no Democratic support it never came to a vote.

By the end of 2008, Fannie and Freddie held or guaranteed approximately 10 million subprime and Alt-A mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS)—risky loans with a total principal balance of $1.6 trillion. These are now defaulting at unprecedented rates, accounting for both their 2008 insolvency and their growing losses today. Since 2008, under government control, the two agencies have continued to buy dicey mortgages in order to stabilize housing prices.

Read entire article here.

By DAVID STREITFELD
Published: December 29, 2009
Just as the economy is finally beginning to strengthen, the real estate market is showing new signs of deterioration.

Prices slipped in many cities in October, new figures show, despite low mortgage rates and a generous tax credit meant to spur sales. Now rates are starting to rise, making it harder for many buyers to afford a house, and the tax credit seems to be losing its capacity to lure them into the market.

The renewed worries about housing come against a backdrop of improvement in the broader economy. Surveys suggest consumers are growing more confident. That better mood probably helped improve holiday retail sales. The number of people joining the ranks of the jobless is dwindling, while the hiring of temporary workers is up, a traditional harbinger of recovery.

Still, economic growth for the third quarter was more modest than originally reported; it was revised down to an annual rate of 2.2 percent from 2.8 percent. Many economists are fretting that housing could drag down the tenuous recovery.

“I’m worried. Everyone’s worried,” said Karl E. Case, the Wellesley College economist who helped design the housing index that provided fresh cause for alarm on Tuesday. “If prices sink 15 percent from here, which is a possibility, and the 2008 and 2009 loans go bad, then we’re back where we were before — in a nightmare.”

The figures released Tuesday showed that the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller home price index, a widely watched measure of housing markets in 20 metropolitan areas, rose 0.4 percent in October from the previous month on a seasonally adjusted basis.

It was the fifth consecutive month that prices were up, but the rate of increase has dropped sharply from the impressive gains of the summer. Prices in nine of the 20 cities were flat or down.

Some analysts see little cause for alarm. Dan Greenhaus of Miller Tabak said that if prices fell “a bit further” it would sop up some of the excess inventory still weighing on the market.

But others said that the Case-Shiller index showed an increase only because each report is an average of the preceding three months, meaning the strong August market was still a component of the October report. Another factor supporting the index is the seasonal adjustments, which tend to hide any weakness in the cooler months as the pace of home-buying slows.

On an unadjusted basis, the index was flat. A different housing price index, compiled by the research firm LoanPerformance, fell 0.7 percent in October.

Mr. Case, who chided himself for his optimism over the summer, said he now believed “the probability is very high of a serious double dip like 1982.”

The federal government has mounted an extensive and expensive effort to repair housing. While these actions undoubtedly staved off a total collapse, they are showing signs of fatigue.

The tax credit for first-time buyers has been extended until next spring, but the urgency that buyers showed this summer, when they believed the credit was about to end, has drained away. The Federal Reserve has intervened in the market to push 30-year mortgage rates to the lowest level in decades, but says that program will end by March 31. Rates have already crept back above 5 percent.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled mortgage giants, are tightening policies for loans in their portfolios. Lenders who sell their mortgages to Fannie and Freddie are becoming more skittish about extending credit.

The Federal Housing Administration, which has become an important part of the entry-level housing market, is expected to tighten its standards in the next few weeks. That would further crimp the pool of eligible buyers.

Faramarz Moeen-Ziai of Bank of Commerce Mortgage in San Ramon, Calif., said many of his clients were struggling to complete deals. “All this is adding to the downward pressure on prices,” he said.

Falling prices are in theory good for buyers. Some housing commentators say prices need to fall much further before houses will be truly affordable. But the drop over the last three years, however necessary, has caused tremendous damage to wallets and to the lubricant of commerce, confidence in the future.

Read entire article here.

Deja vu all over again: Fueling the next housing meltdown

Charles Hugh Smith
Sep 8th 2009 at 4:00PM

Low down payments, risky mortgages guaranteed by government entities, rising defaults — haven’t we been here before? Isn’t this the same mix of easy money and poor risk-management that blew up the housing market in 2007 and 2008?

You’d think the mortgage industry and the federal government would have learned their lesson since the housing bubble’s collapse. But you’d be wrong. Essentially, nothing has changed, except the names of the government-sponsored enterprises.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the GSEs that fueled the great housing bubble of 2002 to 2007, melted down once a substantial portion of the trillions of dollars of risky mortgages they’d underwritten began defaulting. Now that taxpayer-funded bailouts have footed the bill, Fannie and Freddie are mere shadows of their former freewheeling selves.
Read entire article here.