Two developments on the mortgage regulatory front warrant
serious consideration and spawn one insightful observation and draw two
conclusions.
Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mel Watt announced yesterday that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will
guarantee mortgages with down payments
as low as 3%. Previously, though
there were exceptions, Fannie and Freddie required 20% down payments on
mortgages they guaranteed.
At the same time, the Dodd-Frank
requirement that banks retain 5% of the risk in the mortgage loans they originate
and sell to investors or require a 20%
down payment on such loans was watered down. Under the new rules, banks can avoid
retaining risk in the mortgages they originate and sell by merely “verifying a
borrower’s ability to repay” and ensuring that their debt levels remain below
certain predetermined thresholds.
Both moves are part of a general thrust toward easing home
lending requirements and are seen as a response to a continued sluggish housing
market that is characterized by home sales’ being down 2% from last year and
still below pre-recession levels of seven years ago.
One can make one observation and draw two conclusions from
these regulatory developments.
First, the observation:
At the expense of sounding like a heretic in the church
of new age financial innovation,
when you have put down only 3% of the value of “your” home, you don’t own the
home; your lenders do. Many have pointed
out that only a slight change in housing prices would wipe out one’s equity
under such a structure, and that is true.
But even more fundamentally, one doesn’t have to be as atavistic as
yours truly to realize that you don’t own anything when you have borrowed just
about its entire purchase prices.
Now, the first conclusion.
Wall Street must have gotten
to the regulators. Mortgage backed
securities issuance is down 50% year to date from last year. This of course hurts the trading profits of
banks and other Wall Street institutions.
The regulators and their political masters are following their usual
“Yes, sir, you’re right sir, what else can I do to make your life easier, sir?”
approach to Wall Street and to anybody else capable of writing brobdingnagian “campaign”
checks and providing other sources of lucre to our selfless public
servants. That the taxpayers and others
not within the vortex of Washington
may wind up with the bill for such service is inconsequential to the political
class.
Finally, the second conclusion. Regulators have to have concluded that our Potemkin housing market, and maybe our Potemkin economy, cannot survive
without massive debt extension and creation.
That a large chunk of such debt may be unserviceable, and thus will have
to be picked up by the taxpayers is, again, inconsequential to the political
class or to the special interests it services.
No comments:
Post a Comment