Barney Frank Strikes Again!

Barney Frank is more dangerous to the housing economy than Ted Kennedy and an Oldsmobile (RIP Mary Joe Kopechne)! In the Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal (June 24, 2009), it is reported that Barney Frank and Andy Weiner (D-FL) "...sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie exhorting them to lower lending standards for condo buyers."

Lower lending standards? Are you kidding? Is his memory so short that he can't remember what happens when you lower lending standards? Here is a hint, about $1 trillion of taxpayer money flies out the window. Oh, and its foreclosures galore! Cheap? No. 100% Free. Trade stocks for free on Zecco.com. The Free Trading Community. www.zecco.com

Also, when did Representative Frank become a loan officer or underwriter? Maybe, he is just in bed with condo developers or other high power lobbies. In short, he has been shown to be incompetent in dealing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of his regular protestations that the Titanic wasn't sinking.

Risk management is best practiced by those whose money is on the line. Borrowers can shop around for mortgages and the best terms. If there credit is not so good, they can expect to pay more for the mortgage than somebody with better credit. Its all about risk. This is why most in Congress don't "get it." They enjoy a steady stream of taxpayer dollars whether they screw things up or not. They don't worry about going out of business, because the government can just print more money, or so their thinking goes. People who switched to Allstate saved an average of $396 per year. Quote Now!

Consider how your personal economic situation has changed since September of 2008. Do you believe the Congress, President, and government agencies have had a positive impact on you, and the economy at large? Do you believe that Congress should be pressuring others to take dangerous financial risks? If you think government is the answer, things are only going to get worse. If you think government should stay out of the mortgage business, then consider who you vote for in 2010.

See previous posts about this topic: here, here, here, and here.

A Moral Hazard

CNBC's Rick Santelli got it right about this "Mortgage Relief" being pushed by President Obama. While I generally stay out of particular political issues in this blog, the video clip really hits the nail on the head.

For reference, Wikipedia has a good definition of moral hazard:

Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk. Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions.

So, some homeowners got themselves into mortgages which they probably knew they wouldn't be able to make. Now that they are sinking, in rides the US taxpayer to bail them out. As somebody who pays their mortgage on time, I resent having to bail somebody out of their uninformed mortgage mistake. You can read a great primer about the financial crisis here and here.

While I have sympathy for those who don't fully understand mortgages and mortgage documents, I don't have sympathy for mortgage brokers and those who just got big eyes for big houses. I also have only a modicum of sympathy for banks who were bullied into making bad loans by the US Justice Department via the 1977 and 1999 Community Reinvestment Act.

Although I could get on my soap box about thrift, savings, mortgages, living within your means, I won't. Rather, I wish that US citizens will seriously consider both the economic stimulus signed into law and these mortgage and mortgage relief provisions that President Obama wants passed. Finally, I tip my hat to Rick Santelli for telling it like it is.

Stop the Meddling With the Market!!

On the front page of the 04 December print edition of "The Wall Street Journal," the headline is "U.S. Eyes Plan to Lift Home Sales." Are you kidding me?? The article states unbelievably, "The plan, which is in the development stage, would temporarily use the clout of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage banks to lend at rates as low as 4.5%, more than a full point lower than prevailing rates for standard 30-year fixed-rate mortgages."

You just read what I read, Freddie and Fannie back loans whose rate is below market. Good grief!! The goal is to extend more loans and "address falling home prices." Doesn't anybody remember the housing bubble? Why does the government think it makes sense to prop up home prices instead of allowing the market to price them? Also, why allow failed institutions to back below-market mortgages? I feel like I am living in the Twilight Zone.

Let's take this a step further. This scheme is only for buying a home and not refinancing. However, later in the article, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson says "...is to reduce the cost of mortgage finance so more families can afford to buy a home and so homeowners can refinance into more affordable mortgages." Huh? Now he wants to subsidize mortgages? Maybe the plan can include only those refinancing with bad credit, as the rest of us suckers are stuck with what we've got.

When I bought my house, I had to scrimp and save to get a suitable down payment, as well as prove employment and the ability to pay. Guess what, I have been able to pay my mortgage, on time, and without any "adjustments." So why should things change now? What should happen is that those institutions that made bad loans face the consequences.

As a taxpayer, and somebody who pays on time, I resent that some new home buyer is going to get a subsidized mortgage. I also resent the fact the lenders are going to rewarded for not applying standard risk models and setting rates. Stop this madness!! If the US government wants to restore both faith in the financial markets, as well as stability, mortgage and home prices should be set by the market, not by government interference (and my money!).

Financial Crisis Primer

**Make sure to read Part II, here.**

While I have written posts about the Freddie/Fannie mess as well as the collapse of Lehman and Bear, I found an excellent synopsis of the situation in the Sept. 19, 2008 print edition of "The Wall Street Journal." Cheap? No. 100% Free. Trade stocks for free on Zecco.com. The Free Trading Community. www.zecco.com

On page A21, Todd G. Bucholz writes in the Bookshelf section an article titled, "The Woe on Wall Street." The article is a review of David Smick's book, The World is Curved. Here is where I found this gem of knowledge:

"The real problem running throughout the system was not a lack of new regulations. It was a lack of skin - that is, skin in the game. Mortgage brokers turned into fly-by-nighters, immune from the effects of reckless decisions. Local bankers, securitized loans and packed them off to some naive investor or to a rating agency manned by analysts who weren't sharp enough to get a job at Bear Stearns or Lehman. Homebuyers who put nothing down or lied about their income could pack up and run off, leaving no skin behind. The entire housing sector began to look like a motel renting rooms by the hour, as johns and hookers snuck out during the wee hours."

Phew, in a paragraph, that's it. Each player had a part to play. In each case, there was a lack of fundamental risk management. Mortgage brokers were setting up loans to folks who shouldn't have had them. The banks lent the money anyway, and sold off the loans to those who didn't have the skill or desire to evaluate them properly. Investment houses saw low interest rates as the sole risk premium, ignoring all that they had learned at Wharton or Harvard. Protect your Medical Identity with TrustedID. $1,000,000 Warranty & Great Customer Service

While I don't wish to understate dishonesty or chicanery, I can't speak strongly enough of proper risk management. I invite all those who study or have studied such things to go back to your Finance books. Look at the sections about risk management. Its worth the read. And to think, I only got my MBA from a state school.

Winners and Losers

It is very easy to consider the free market as nothing but a vehicle to decide winners and losers. However, it is more than that. It is a vehicle to restore order and balance, insuring that the fundamental principles of economics are obeyed.

In the events of the past weeks, we have seen stalwarts such as Merrill Lynch and Co., Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae all begin to fade into obscurity.

As this is the political silly season in the U.S., politicians are quick to point blame at each other, some of which is well deserved. However, the current troubles are the result of violating basic economic principles. Yes, I repeated the phrase, because it bears repeating.

Companies in the U.S. can safely take on debt (leverage), if their cash flow permits it. Additionally, debt can be used to lessen taxes. However, with debt comes risk. Failure to properly evaluate risk can result in being over leveraged and unable to pay back the debt. That is exactly what we have seen in this current economic situation.

Individuals took out mortgages well in excess of their ability to pay. These mortgages were bundled, chopped into pieces (tranches), and sold. Lehman, Merrill, etc., bought these seemingly low-risk securities and then used them as collateral for new debt. In both the individual and corporate cases, they were over-leveraged. People have been missing mortgage payments. The tranches with bad mortgages have lost value. That value which was used as collateral is now insufficient to pay back corporate loans. Badda bing, badda boom, companies go out of business.

Let this be a lesson, conservative risk management rewards in the long run. Bank of America, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, while taking it on the chin in the short run, are well positioned to weather this storm. The market is correcting the excesses and that's exactly what it is supposed to do.

Ken Lewis Cleans Up

Its good to be the king, or CEO of a major bank. Ken Lewis, the CEO of Bank of America, is looking quite smart.

Forbes did an article about the whole Freddie/Fannie mess call "BofA's Bailout Benefit" on September 8th.

The article calls out how Mr. Lewis was panned for his purchase of Country Wide, the large and failing mortgage company. Many thought BofA was chasing good money after bad. However, with the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, he is looking crazy like a fox.

From the article: "The Ladenburg Thalman analyst (Dick Bove) argues that Bank of America, and Countrywide, have the existing infrastructure to start buying and securitizing loans on a large scale. He even said in a phone interview that Bank of America's capital levels would allow it to guarantee mortgage payments. This promise to pay has been Freddie and Fannie's traditional role in the U.S. housing market."

Naturally, one questions if a company like BofA can handle the securitization and guarantee of mortgage payments, do we really need Freddie and Fannie anyway?? Arguably, the answer is "No." In my previous post "Taxpayers Cover Freddie's Fannie," I state the bailout is a done deal, but what to do with the Freddie and Fannie is an open question.

It would seem that a market solution may be the best solution after all. Yes, you can hear me grinning, as that is a common theme of mine. Although widespread home ownership is valid policy objective, let's keep the government out of it to the greatest extent.

Again, from the article: "“I would be shocked if Bank of America isn’t happy about how this worked out. For years, banks have been asking for Fannie and Freddie to be cut back in size because they have they an unfair advantage," said Bove.“The government says Fannie and Freddie handled 80.0% of the market this year and someone has to handle that market share.”

There you have it, companies such as BofA are well positioned to handle a piece of the hopefully dismantled Freddie and Fannie. The next question is whether other banks of similar size have enough capital to do the same. If Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and Wachovia can get their capital coffers refilled, then maybe this will be a reality. However, if they can't get their collective acts together, expect to see more Barney Frank (D-MA) and government intervention.

US Taxpayers Cover Freddie's Fannie

The US taxpayer is going to insure the financial solvency of two public companies. Sounds a bit odd. So odd, that Jim Rogers of Rogers Holding proclaims, " (the U.S. is )more communist than China right now."

According to the Wall Street Journal Print edition ("US Seizes Mortgage Giants", Sept. 8, 2008, A1)

"In its most dramatic market intervention in years, the U.S. government seized two of the nation's largest financial companies, taking direct responsibility for firms that provided funding for around three-quarters of new home mortgages."

What is person to think? Should the government be meddling in a publicly-traded company's solvency? Is it right to have the government backing the fortunes of shareholders? Is there some greater good at stake to make this more palatable?

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are federally-chartered, publicly traded companies. Both companies' missions are to make home ownership more affordable, as well as making financing more reliable. Sounds good, right? Ah, but the catch is that when government is in the business of making things "more affordable," it presumes that the market can't do that effectively, thus creating constraints and other conditions not present in the market, which may or may not increase risk.

While millions of Americans have benefited from home ownership, and world financial markets have benefited from the buying of mortgage-backed securities (until recently), it would appear that these businesses have been a success. However, with flood of loose mortgages and the collapse of the credit market, maybe these "affordable" mortgages weren't such a good idea.

But they were! When the government chartered the businesses, it assumed the risks via the conditions placed on Freddie and Fannie. While there has been considerable legislative debate over their existence, they have provided the financing for millions of mortgages. However, it is time to pay the piper, and that is just what the government did, step in and put US taxpayer money on the line to pay for a system set up over four decades ago.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, when the government proposes interference in the free market, it is up to the citizens to either approve or disapprove of the action. US taxpayers should view this situation with great concern and think long and hard about the value of these two institutions.

I don't presume to have an answer, but I am willing to hear the arguments for both sides and would like to see more detailed analysis to make an informed decision.