Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. — Patrick Henry


Leftists Miss David Brat on Financial Meltdown

June 13, 2014   ·   By   ·   4 Comments

Fannie Mae Headquarters (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Fannie Mae Headquarters (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Formerly unknown congressional candidate Dave Brat has been in the headlines ever since he ousted soon-to-be former House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor for Virginia’s 7th Congressional District Republican nomination.

Now, Brat faces an even greater challenge in the general election. First up is taking on the left-wing political intelligentsia, which is attempting to eviscerate his election chances.

For example, writing for Mother Jones, Molly Redden and David Corn try to discredit Brat’s critique of government policies that led to the financial crisis.

“An economics professor at Randolph-Macon College in central Virginia, Brat frequently has repeated the conservative canard that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae brought down the housing market by handling the vast majority of subprime mortgages,” write Redden and Corn, adding, “That is, he absolves Big Finance and the banks of responsibility for the financial crisis that triggered the recession.”

Redden and Corn are referring to Brat’s frequent refrain on the campaign trail that “Fannie and Freddie made two-thirds of all subprime mortgages.”

At this point, it is probably best to defer to American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Edward Pinto, former Fannie Mae executive vice president and chief credit officer, on this count. After all, he literally wrote the book on how Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE), congressional, and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) policies were among the primary causes in the build-up of hundreds of billions of dollars non-traditional mortgages that nearly crashed the global economy.

Now, even if one takes a broad view of “subprime” as “residential mortgages issued to high-risk borrowers, such as those with a history of late payments or bankruptcy,” as the Financial Times does, or simply, mortgages that are not prime, a better term would be Pinto’s non-traditional mortgages.

Also, it would be more accurate to say more than two-thirds of the crappy loans were Fannie, Freddie, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Federal Home Loan Bank, and Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) required loans.

Per Pinto’s forensic study: “As of June 30, 2008 over 70 percent of the 26.7 million NTMs with weak or high risk characteristics — 19.25 million loans – were owned or guaranteed by (a) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (11.9 million), (b) the Federal Housing Administration and other federal agencies (4.8 million); (c) Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) investments in Alt-A and Subprime Private MBS (0.3 million) or (d) banks and other lenders originating loans pursuant to CRA requirements and HUD‘s Best Practices program (2.2 million, net of CRA loans already accounted for in (a) and (b). These numbers suggest that government policies and requirements were the source of the loans with weak or high risk characteristics, and thus the cause of the financial crisis.”

Those quibbles aside, Brat is pretty much right. The federal government was responsible for more than two-thirds of the risky mortgages that were made in the bubble.

Adding to the trouble, the GSEs were undercapitalized as a matter of policy, and enabling them to lead the market in low-income borrowing, according to Pinto: “The GSEs only needed $900 in capital behind a $200,000 mortgage they guaranteed — many of which by 2004-2007 had no borrower downpayment. In order for the private sector to compete with Fannie and Freddie, it needed to find ways to increase leverage.”

When Americans for Limited Government reached out to Pinto in 2010 about a draft version of his forensic study, he told us that the GSEs were driving the market for non-traditional mortgages and that the “market response was: if it’s okay with Fannie and Freddie (the de facto standards setters) it must be okay for us.”

The build up by Fannie and Freddie was deadly, would have never been possible without HUD mismanagement, and had unquestionably negative feedback throughout mortgage markets, Pinto notes: “HUD’s policy of continually and disproportionately increasing the GSEs’ goals for low- and very-low income borrowers led to further loosening of lending standards causing most industry participants to reach further down the demand curve and originate even more NTMs. As prices rose at a faster pace, an affordability gap developed, leading to further increases in leverage and home prices. Once the price boom slowed, loan defaults on NTMs quickly increased leading to a freeze-up of the private MBS market. A broad collapse of home prices followed.”

Together with the HUD and the FHA, Fannie and Freddie helped to cause the crisis by weakening underwriting standards, lowering down payments, and generally degrading the quality of credit in both government and private backed loans.  Also, because of the implicit backing of taxpayers, the GSE-issued securities were automatically granted AAA bond ratings, and the Fannie and Freddie were even able to misrepresent the quality of mortgages that underlined those securities.

As if that was not bad enough, Fannie and Freddie crafted a marketing plan that promised a higher rate of return than treasuries, but with the same risk associated with a taxpayer guarantee.

It was that implicit guarantee that enabled the GSEs to sell some $4.7 trillion of mortgage-backed securities, $1.5 trillion of which were sold overseas to investors, as reported by the New York Times. As more securities were sold, Fannie and Freddie bought more mortgages and bundled them into securities. As a direct result, Fannie and Freddie were able to acquire about half of all mortgages as of July 2008.

By 2008, Fannie and Freddie held $1.835 trillion in higher-risk mortgages and mortgage-backed securities: $1.646 trillion, were GSE-issued mortgage-backed securities, and $189 billion of subprime and Alt-A private mortgage-backed securities.

Brat is correct to lay the crisis largely at the feet of Fannie and Freddie. They, along with HUD, FHA, and Congress were the ones that loosened the underwriting standards. Private sector leverage was largely a response to what Fannie and Freddie were doing in the market.

To see which institutions had the larger role to play, just look at the size of the bailouts. To date, the Federal Reserve has bought back more than $1.6 trillion of mortgage backed securities (MBS) that were issued by the GSEs, including Fannie, Freddie, and also Ginnie Mae (which guarantees FHA and VA loans), according to the 2010 Federal Reserve audit of the MBS purchase program. In addition, the GSEs received $187 billion directly from taxpayers.

Therefore, the GSEs were responsible for approximately $1.8 trillion of the crisis. Comparatively, AIG needed an infusion of $182 billion of loans from the Federal Reserve and TARP for its role in insuring subprime and other risky loans against default. The Bear Stearns deal was $25 billion. Another $289 billion in TARP loans were made to affected institutions, too. So, on a bailout scale, $1.8 trillion was spent on GSEs in direct bailouts and about $500 billion was lent to the private sector. More than 3 to 1.

The difference is the private sector paid back their emergency loans. The $1.8 trillion spent on Fannie and Freddie was a direct subsidy from the Fed and from Congress. How it will be recouped, for example, if the Fed will simply hold the mortgages to maturity, transmitting interest earned to the Treasury, or the securities are sold to private sector actors, remains to be seen.

But on Brat’s primary contention, yes, government policies, including the GSEs, were responsible for 72 percent of the risky lending. Private institutions on their own accounted for 28 percent.

Brat was not absolving anyone, but he could be more specific — perhaps just include Ginnie in the statement “Fannie and Freddie made two-thirds of all subprime mortgages” — but the general idea that the government was responsible for the vast majority of the risky lending is spot on accurate.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau. Americans for Limited Government is a non- partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free market reforms,private property rights and core American liberties.
Robert Romano
View all articles by Robert Romano
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • Richard Thompson

    The Tea Party apparently only pumps the Constitution when it suits their political agenda. The continued conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the biggest financial scam in recent history, a slap in the face to property rights and the fifth amendment. They have both long since paid off their ‘bailouts’ which by the way were unnecessary but guess who hasn’t paid back tax payers for bailout money..

    Bank of America
    Wells Fargo
    JP Morgan Chase

    A company (Fannie) with $882 billion in assets was forced to take a $116 billion dollar bailout and surrender itself to the FHFA and Treasury?

    Where does Brat dream up these numbers

    Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent.

    • Bob Ellis

      Do you bash the Tea Party just because the media says you should? Ask just about any Tea Party patriot and you’ll find they’re likely opposed not only to the bailout but to government being involved in the lending business in the first place (i.e. Fannie and Freddie).

      • Richard Thompson

        Bob I would have a tough time voting for a democrat but I will not stand for theft, securities fraud, insider trading, or anyone who supports it or turns a blind eye to it. Sure, you can make the arguement that Fannie and Freddie should be privatized. That suggestion has been made and ignored by this administration.

        Back to my original point. Fannie and Freddie were NOT insolvent. Their alleged bailout was forced upon them by Hank Paulson and they were simply seized. Look at Fannie’s balance sheet again from 2007. Under the unlawful conservatorship Fannie and Freddie were to pay Treasury a 10% annual dividend but when they became immensely profitable Timothy Geithner decided to simply take all of their profits and send them to Treasury in 2012. This decision was made unbeknowst to shareholders. It is likely, and I only say likely pending outcomes of ongoing litigation, that the FHA and FDIC sold the equities of the two companies based on this insider information.

        Proposals from the house and senate (written by Countrywide Financial executive, Michael Bright, for Bob Corker) eliminate Fannie and Freddie leaving shareholders with nothing. These are the two most profitable companies in the world. They can not legally be placed in receivership. There is something called the Fifth Amendmet which reads “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.

        I thought the Tea Party would be more sensitive to insider trading, securities fraud, and properties rights violations. The executive branch spanning two administrations and the legislative branch have failed. We should both hope the judicial branch gets this right or we will see more American corportations seized by our government like mining companies in Argentina and Venezuela.

        • Bob Ellis

          I still don’t get the disdain for the Tea Party. Sounds like you’d agree with the Tea Party on some important things. The Tea Party isn’t focused so much on things like insider trading, securities fraud, etc (though most would be against those things, too), but rather are focused on larger issues such as the fact that the government shouldn’t be meddling in the financial industry, much less competing in in it with their pseudo-governmental agencies like Fannie and Freddie.

Featured Articles


Pastors Resist Houston Mayor’s Power Grab

Guest Author

Houston is home to one of NASA's most sophisticated space centers -- but even it would have trouble finding signs of intelligence in the local Mayor's office. The city's highest official is blowing past the First Amendment at warp speed -- and lighting a political powder keg in the process.

Supreme Court

No To Graven Images

David Whitney

This past Monday the Supreme Court, in typical fashion, issued its decree for the destruction of God's Holy Institution of marriage in America. By refusing a writ of certiorari, it condemned five more States immediately, and potentially all the remaining States in the union, to have sodomite un-marriage forced upon them. What is very significant in this is that this would be against the plain statements of those State Constitutions as well as State law, not to mention six thousand years of human history.


Ben Affleck’s Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

A.J. Castellitto

Watch this video very, very carefully..... Then share it with your young liberal friends.


Tea Party Express Whores Itself to RINO Establishment

Bob Ellis

We've come to a very sad and pathetic place in America and South Dakota, these days. There once was a time, not too long ago, when you could count on certain people and groups to do the right thing and hold the line against what was wrong. Not anymore.


Multiculturalism: Good or Bad for America?

Michael Peroutka

Is multiculturalism a good thing or a bad thing for our American society? You might not realize it, but this is a very important question. This agenda of multiculturalism is based on the notion that we are a more stable, prosperous society because we embrace diversity, toleration and acceptance of anything and everything. But is this true?


"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964