Tag Archives: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

Fannie, Freddie and Trump

Posted on by
Reply
Profile picture for William J. Pulte

FHFA Director Bill Pulte

Central Banking quoted me in Fannie, Freddie . . . and Donald. It reads, in part,

IIn a client note on May 13, investment management firm Pimco said any privatisation of Fannie and Freddie would be a solution in search of a problem.

“If the GSEs are released but the government remains accountable to come to their rescue, wouldn’t taxpayers ultimately be the biggest loser, once again, by seeing GSE gains privatised but losses socialised?” it said, adding: “Don’t fix what’s not broken.”

David Reiss, professor at Cornell Law School, says Pimco’s view reflects the fact that the mortgage market has been functioning “pretty smoothly” since Fannie and Freddie were nationalised. According to this viewpoint, there is “no need to release them from conservatorship”.

However, Reiss says he does not like to see so much power and influence concentrated in the GSEs, and he believes the private sector would do a better job of evaluating credit risk.

“Some people – mostly investors in Fannie and Freddie securities – think [privatisation] is the right thing to do because the conservatorships were supposed to be temporary and the companies should be returned to private control and investors should be able to get some kind of return on their investments,” he says.

Reiss adds that some members of the Trump administration think privatisation would generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that could be used to help pay down the national debt, offset tax cuts and seed a sovereign wealth fund.

Joe Tracy, senior fellow with think-tank the American Enterprise Institute and a former official with the Federal Reserve banks of New York and Dallas, agrees with Reiss. “The problem is that they are in conservatorship limbo, so the government has effectively nationalised a large segment of mortgage finance,” he says. “This should be carried out by the private sector.”

    *     *     *

Lawrence White, professor at New York University and co-author of Guaranteed to Fail: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Debacle of Mortgage Finance, says the GSEs are unlikely to become boring unless they are broken down. He believes that if Fannie and Freddie are privatised in their current form, each enterprise will be likely to pose a systemic risk from a financial stability perspective.

“The implication is that their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency [FHFAI, will need to have strong powers of examination and supervision and will need to impose substantial, risk-adjusted capital requirements,” he says.

“It is unclear whether there will be implications for the Fed as lender of last resort, since the Fed’s lending function is currently limited to banks.”

Reiss agrees that the two lenders are systemically important. If they “had to significantly scale back their lending, it would likely cause a crisis in the financial markets”, he says. “If that crisis were not quickly addressed it would cause a crisis in the real economy as well, freezing up credit for new construction and resales.”

Given that the two GSEs issue more than 70% of the outstanding $9 trillion of mortgage-backed securities in the US and, if privatised, would be two of the country’s largest publicly traded companies, the financial stability risks are clear, he says.

Reiss adds that if the privatisations were poorly planned, and if this were priced in by the markets, it would lead to “higher mortgage rates, with all of the knock-on effects that would have”. This, he says, would “increase the magnitude of a financial crisis if the two companies were to report poor financial results down the line”

Reiss’s interpretation of the Fed’s role is different to that of White, and he believes history may end up repeating itself. He says that although the FHFA is Fannie and Freddie’s primary regulator, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 requires the Fed to be consulted about any federal government processes related to the companies.

“The Fed may also co-ordinate with other parts of the federal government in responding to a financial crisis, such as purchasing Fannie and Freddie securities, as they did during the financial crisis of 2007-08,” he says. “One could well imagine the Fed playing a similar role in future crises involving Fannie and Freddie.

Reiss on Myths of the Fed

Posted on by

Bankrate.com quoted me in a story, 5 Myths Debunked About The Federal Reserve. it reads in part,

Assassination, foreign control and money printing: the stuff of a motion picture thriller?

Not in this case. They’re all the fodder for wild and surprisingly popular myths surrounding the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve.

It does wield considerable power, evident in the extraordinary measures taken during and after the financial crisis. But it’s amazing the things that otherwise reasonable people say about this admittedly complex U.S. government institution.

David Reiss, professor at the Brooklyn Law School, says, “To most of us, the Federal Reserve is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, to borrow Winston Churchill’s phrase.”

With the Fed celebrating its centennial, the time is right to tackle some of these myths head-on. There are many myths out there regarding the Fed. Here are just a handful.

*     *     *

Myth 3: The Fed prints money

The notion is rooted in the Federal Reserve’s control of the nation’s money supply. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing, part of the U.S. Treasury, is responsible for printing currency.

“Although the Bureau of Printing and Engraving prints it, it delivers it to the Fed, and then the Fed gets to decide how much of it to put out into the economy,” says W. Michael Cox, director of the O’Neil Center for Global Markets and Freedom at Southern Methodist University’s Cox School of Business. He’s also former chief economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

In a way, Reiss of the Brooklyn Law School says, “the Fed can create money and does so in a variety of ways.” What he means is the Fed can increase the money supply through its monetary tools. Since the end of 2008, it has used “quantitative easing,” or QE, a term used to describe the Fed’s strategy to boost the supply of money. In the latest round of QE, the Fed has undertaken the monthly purchase of $85 billion in assets over the past year.

If you want to describe the process correctly, you might take a cue from St. Lawrence University’s Horwitz. The central bank isn’t in the printing business, but it has some control of the process.

“The money that the Fed creates is all done electronically in the form of bookkeeping entries that expand the deposit accounts that banks hold at the Fed,” he says.