Tag Archives: Trump

Bullying the Fed

Posted on by
Reply

Fed Chair Jerome Powell

Central Banking quoted me in Economists Denounce Trump’s ‘Bullying’ of Fed Chair (sign up required). It opens,

Economists have attacked what they regard as US president Donald Trump’s bullying of Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, describing it as dangerous for the central bank’s continued independence.

On June 30, Trump posted on his social media platform a copy of a handwritten letter to Powell showing interest rates around the world. In the letter, Trump had written: “Jerome, you are as usual, too late. You have cost the USA a fortune, and continue to do so. You should lower the rate by a lot. Hundreds of billions of dollars being lost. No inflation.”

Along with the note, Trump posted that “Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell, and his entire Board, should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen to the United States. They have one of the easiest, yet most prestigious, jobs in America, and they have FAILED — And continue to do so”.

He added: “If they were doing their job properly, our Country would be saving Trillions of Dollars in Interest Cost. The Board just sits there and watches, so they are equally to blame. We should be paying 1% Interest, or better!”

On July 1, Powell said the Fed would probably have lowered rates already had it not been for the tariffs and trade policies introduced by the Trump administration.

Ralf Fendel, professor of economics at WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management in Germany, says Trump’s note bears all the hallmarks of political interference.

“Handwritten personal correspondence is traditionally reserved for heartfelt gratitude or strategic diplomacy, but not for exerting pressure on an independent central bank,” he tells Central Banking. “In resisting such pressure, Mr Powell is upholding the Fed’s institutional credibility and responding appropriately to a macroeconomic environment clouded by trade policy uncertainty and various economic risks.”

Fendel adds that Fed decisions must be guided by economic data and not the demands of the White House.

William English – professor of economics at Yale University, and a former director of the Fed’s monetary affairs division and secretary to the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) – says that having a president who is so publicly critical makes the Fed’s job more complicated. “But they have their mandate and will do their best to achieve that,” he says. “We’ll see how it goes!”

Francesco Bianchi, professor of economics and department chair at Johns Hopkins University, says the most recent remarks by Trump represent a turn for the worse.

“Such a confrontational stance cannot be good for central bank independence,” he says. “Powell probably feels that he needs to push back against the pressure and that he has a bit more freedom given that his second term is coming to an end.”

Fed historian Robert Hetzel adds that Trump appears to want to return to a time when the central bank was subservient to the US Treasury.

David Reiss, professor of law at Cornell University, says there is an extensive history of presidents “jawboning” the Fed chair to lower rates. However, he says central banks work better when “insulated from the political exigencies of political leaders”.

“Paradoxically, bullying the central bank can lead to interest rates increasing, as markets demand a higher risk premium as trust in the central bank’s decision-making decreases,” he says. He also concurs with Powell’s assessment that tariffs are inflationary through many channels.

Fannie, Freddie and Trump

Posted on by
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.

Trump’s Plans to Privatize Fannie and Freddie

Posted on by
from Cato Institute website, https://www.cato.org/people/mark-calabria

Mark Calabria, OMB Associate Director for Treasury, Housing, and Commerce

I was interviewed on  WBUR-FM’s On Point (distributed by American Public Radio), hosted by Meghna Chakrabarti for an episode on How Trump Plans To Get Government out of the Mortgage Business. The link has the recording of the show as well as a transcript.

The transcript of the interview starts,

CHAKRABARTI: Now that President Trump is back in the White House, it seems that he intends to get the job done this time around. Mark Calabria has returned to Trump’s administration, this time working on housing policy at the Office of Management and Budget. Bill Pulte is now director of FHFA, and he just made the highly unusual move of appointing himself chair of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, making the regulator and the regulated basically the same.

Pulte also fired 14 of the 25 sitting board members at Fannie and Freddie. A shakeup many are suspecting is a first step in leading these two companies out of government control and into privatization. We’re talking about a huge part of the U.S. economy that underpins the housing market. So this hour, we want to explore what privatization of Fannie and Freddie actually means, what it should look like, and how it might have an impact on homeowners and the housing market.

So to do that, David Reiss joins us. He’s a clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and Cornell Tech, an expert in housing finance and policy. Professor Reiss, welcome to On Point.

DAVID REISS: Meghna, thank you so much.

CHAKRABARTI: I have to tell you that I actually can’t believe that it’s been 17 years since the financial crisis of 2008.

Let’s dust off the memory banks professor and go back to before 2008 and start there. Can you just remind us like what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, what their purpose was, who owned them, et cetera?

REISS: I’m gonna go even a little bit further back than Fannie and Freddie’s creation, because I think it’s really gonna help people visualize what’s at stake here.

And if you think back to the 19th century and somebody was trying to buy a house, they didn’t have that many options. A house has always been a very expensive thing to buy, so they need to borrow some money to buy a house. And how could you do that?

Maybe if you’re rich, you could do it, or had a rich uncle, but otherwise you need to go to somebody who has capital and that you could borrow it and give them some interest in return. And pay them back over time, and be able to live in that house while you’re paying back the amount of money that you borrowed. And so if people think of It’s a Wonderful Life where there’s the Bailey Brothers building in loans and where they, people deposit their small savings into the buildings and loan.

And then some people are then able to borrow some money from the buildings and loan for mortgages. And there’s the famous scene where there’s a panic at the bank. And Jimmy Stewart says, Mrs. Kennedy, your money is in Mrs. Smith’s house. And Mrs. Smith, your money is in Ms. Macklin’s house.

And that’s the way it was done in the 19th century and the early 20th century. But there were real limitations to that. Sometimes communities didn’t have a lot of capital to lend people, so maybe in out west or in the Midwest there wasn’t a lot of capital, like there might’ve been back east in Boston or New York.

And so people who could have handled the mortgage just didn’t have access to it. It was like they were living in a dry area, and the fresh flowing credit didn’t reach their dry community. So during the Great Depression and the New Deal the government started to intervene, to spread credit out across the country in a way that kind of provided liquidity to all the communities where people wanted to borrow.

And Fannie Mae was a creature of the New Deal, but really took off in the ’70s along with its sibling Freddie Mac. And effectively, what those two companies were designed by Congress to do was to ensure that capital could go across state borders in a way that banks were typically not allowed to do. And they effectively created at first a national market for mortgage credit, and effectively when they access the global credit markets over time, an international global market for credit. So they’re really intermediaries.

Move Fast and Break the Mortgage Market

Posted on by

Bill Pulte, FHFA Director and Chair of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac

I was quoted in the American Prospect’s story, Move Fast and Break the Mortgage Market. It reads, in part,

This week, the Donald Trump–appointed chief regulator for the two quasi-governmental companies that own or control about half of the residential housing market anointed himself the board chair of both those companies. This maneuver could signal a host of shenanigans: the culmination of a 17-year hedge fund get-rich-quick scheme, a balance-sheet fiction to justify tax cuts, a new favor factory for apartment developers with ties to the president, a data transfer so Elon Musk’s everything app can learn how to sell mortgages, or something equally problematic.

But what gives former board members, market observers, and officials at the regulator greater concern is the distinct possibility that mucking around with the $7.7 trillion secondary mortgage market could lead to breaking it.

If that happens, homebuyers may not be able to get mortgages, homebuilders may be reluctant to break ground, and uncertainty would abound in a market that has brought down the economy on more than one occasion in U.S. history, most recently in 2008. “It could freeze sales, freeze refinances, stop people from forming households, cause people to be afraid of moving, freeze up developers of housing and the secondary market,” said David Reiss, a professor at Cornell Law School.

* * *

Multifamily Glad-Handing

The GSEs have a pretty sober business on the single-family side, and since the housing collapse really originated there, a lot of work was done to clean up that part of the business. But Fannie and Freddie also make loans in the multifamily market to support building of apartments and condos. A former official with one of the GSEs told me that business is a little looser, with ways to enhance those loans.

This president, of course, is a multifamily real estate developer himself, who has friends in multifamily real estate development. Hamara, one of the new board members, is a vice president at Tri Pointe Homes, a major homebuilder. You could imagine these relationships leading to the GSEs pushing risk limits, loosening credit standards, or raising loan-to-value ratios for favored borrowers. There is a secret mortgage blacklist at Fannie Mae for condos without enough property insurance or in need of repairs; controlling the board could make that blacklist go away, at least for certain developers.

This kind of setup resembles the opportunity zones that were a feature of the 2017 Trump tax cuts. They gave significant tax breaks to investors in certain communities deemed in need of development. Trump administration officials credit opportunity zones with increasing housing construction, but critics argue that the investments were rife with corruption and favor-trading.

That could also be the case here: New criteria guiding the new boards might lead to more multifamily housing, but with uneven results, favors to friends, and idiosyncratic deals that would be more about boosting allies than building housing. And as Calabria has pointed out, Fannie and Freddie are likely under Trump to cancel affordable-housing initiatives, meaning that sweetheart deals might only extend to the developers, rather than the public. Plus, there is the potential for dramatic losses if lending standards erode.

Reiss, of Cornell, agreed that this was all a possibility. “If someone gets to one of the directors, and they are there not acting as a fiduciary for the company, it opens the door to political favoritism,” he said.

* * *

What If It Breaks

Pulte is expected to force job cuts at the GSEs, which employ roughly 15,000 people. He has already been making familiar noises about DEI and remote work. One possibility on the table at the GSEs is merging Fannie and Freddie; you don’t usually have the same person chair the boards of two direct competitors. The regulatory agency is also likely to see cuts; already at FHFA, according to one source, fair lending and consumer protection groups have been put on administrative leave, along with employees at the Division of Research and Statistics.

Controlling the boards would limit dissent about these actions. But cuts in the name of efficiency could strain or even rupture the numerous functions the GSEs carry out, with consequences for the entire housing market.

Due to the conservatorship, the GSEs are limited in what they can pay their employees, which has led to a talent drain. Some systems have not been integrated, and others are not up to industry standards. Fannie and Freddie have a cautious internal culture that doesn’t move quickly. Hacking away at their already weakened structure could easily create operational harm.

But Reiss explained that nothing has to overtly break to lose the confidence of the markets; even a lack of workforce to move the paper around could create that impression, and disrupt the flow of credit. “If there is any kind of uncertainty, the spread between Fannie and Freddie securities and Treasury bonds will increase,” he said. “Investors will ask if the government will make good on Fannie and Freddie bonds. This uncertainty and direction could increase costs over time for all borrowers.”

Debranding Trump

Posted on by

Dano CC BY 2.0 DEED

Agence France-Presse (AFP) quoted me in Posts Falsely Say Trump Name Erased from New York Properties. It reads, in part,

“We have already seen cases where Trump’s name has been removed from a property because the owner no longer thought it benefited the property,” David Reiss, professor at Brooklyn Law School, confirmed to AFP on October 4.

In September 2023, it was also reported that Trump would sell his multimillion-dollar lease on a public golf course in the Bronx to the Bally’s casino chain . . . “naming rights are often a separately negotiated item. For instance, companies pay millions of dollars to get naming rights to stadiums,” Reiss explained.

Both the Trump Tower and Trump Park Avenue, for example, still bear the former president’s name and remain under his ownership, as of this writing, a member of buildings staff confirmed to AFP by telephone.

AFP contacted the Trump Organization for further comment, but a response was not forthcoming.

While exceptions happen, Reiss noted that “generally when a party gives up ownership or control of a property, their name goes with them.”

 

 

 

Trump’s Real Estate Valuations: They Mean Just What He Chooses

Posted on by
illustration by Sir John Tenniel

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

 

The Daily Beast quoted me in Trump’s Bank Fraud Defense ‘Defies the Laws of Physics.’ It reads, in part,

Donald Trump’s colossal trial for faking property values starts next Monday, and one mind-boggling issue has emerged as his weakest defense yet: the idea that his past lies on financial statements were justified because prices eventually went up anyway.

    *     *     *

“What he is saying is completely inconsistent with how real estate professionals talk about valuations,” said David Reiss, a Brooklyn Law School professor who specializes in real estate finance.

“When you talk about valuations at a given time, you’re talking about what its value is at that time. It becomes more valuable in the future, but that’s its value at the time,” Reiss said.

That means Trump’s 2014 financial statement should have, naturally, captured the value of any given building or land at that time.

To better understand why Trump’s excuse is bonkers requires a quick review of the three basic methods to assess value employed by professional property appraisers.

One is the income approach: What income a particular property is currently generating? That doesn’t account for the future, Reiss said.

Another is the cost approach: How much does it cost to replace the property? That doesn’t consider the future either, Reiss made clear.

The third is the sales comparison approach: What are similar parcels and comparable properties selling for? This could include future expectation of development, Reiss explained. After all, sale prices are determined by supply and demand—and a fundamental concept in economics dictates that demand can be affected by consumer expectations of future price changes.

As usual, Trump’s logic seems to careen off the rails and focus solely on his property’s future value. But Trump simply can’t do that because he wants to.

“That’s not how the legal system works or how the real estate industry works… if everybody could say that, nobody could be accused of a lie. We would all do whatever the heck we want,” Reiss said.

Reiss likened Trump redefining time-bound questions on financial forms to the way Humpty Dumpty makes up words in Lewis Carroll’s sequel to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. The law professor read a passage in which Alice took issue with the Eggman’s improper use of the word “glory.”

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

The NYAG Lawsuit against Trump

Posted on by

NY Attorney General James

I was interviewed by Reuters in Explainer: What New York’s lawsuit means for Trump regarding the lawsuit that New York Attorney General James filed against former President Trump and others in his circle. The video is here. The transcript reads in part,

The lawsuit seeks to have Trump and the other defendants give up $250 million in what she says were false financial gains.

James is also seeking to bar Trump and three of his children – Donald Trump Jr, Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump – from serving as directors of companies registered in New York…

and prevent them and their company from buying commercial real estate or getting bank loans in New York state for five years.

She is also seeking to appoint an independent monitor at the Trump Organization to oversee various aspects of its business for five years.

Trump, who is considering running again for president in 2024, is expected to contest the litigation. But David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, sees another possibility…

“…He’s been very effective at pushing final outcomes in his legal battles years down the road, and maybe that’s a good enough strategy for him. That’s possible. The other possibility, even though he doesn’t say this on Twitter, is he may settle.”