Tuesday, July 22, 2008

The Problems At Freddie and Fannie Run Deep

From the WSJ:

Bank examiners from the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency are looking at the books of mortgage investors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a person familiar with the situation said.

The examiners are working with the two companies' main regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, or Ofheo, this person said. This joint effort to assess the financial condition of the two government-sponsored companies was first reported by the New York Times Web site late Monday.

Fannie and Freddie face sizable losses as defaults increase and home prices fall. That has caused a plunge in their share prices over the past few weeks, though the shares have recovered somewhat in recent days. Ofheo has said that the companies' capital remains above their regulatory minimums.


And why are they being looked at? Here's why:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may need to record more writedowns after they expanded their purchases of non-guaranteed subprime and Alt-A mortgage securities just as other investors fled to safer investments, their regulator said.

The value of $217 billion of the so-called non-agency securities is falling as other financial firms write down their holdings, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight said in its annual mortgage market report. Privately issued securities backed by subprime mortgages made up 9.2 percent of the companies' combined portfolio, while Alt-A represented about 5.8 percent, Ofheo said.

By investing ``heavily'' in private-label securities in 2004 and 2005, the companies ``significantly increased their exposure to fair value losses from changes in market prices,'' Ofheo said. Structured investment vehicles and securities firms, battered by $452 billion in asset writedowns and credit losses, were invested in similar securities and have contributed to the price swings that may lead to more losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under generally accepted accounting principles.

``To the extent that those institutions recognize fair value losses on their private-label portfolios under GAAP, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have to do so as well,'' the Washington-based regulator wrote in the report.


Subprime makes up 9.2% of the GSE's portfolio at a total of over $200 billion dollars. Imagine what happens when that portfolio has to be written down.

The following is pure conjecture; I have no inside knowledge of such things.

About a week and a half ago we started to hear very negative stories about the GSEs. Then we started to see news stories about how these entities needed cash and/or were in trouble. Here's what I think happened.

Sometime during the week of July 7 phone calls were made that involved Bernanke, Paulson and the heads of the GSEs. The main thrust of the calls was this: Fannie and Freddie were not doing well. Between rising delinquencies and falling home values the GSEs portfolios were in serious trouble and getting worse. Considering that subprime debt is 9.2% of GSE portfolios we now know that GSE's are getting hit really hard.

Then we started to see a whole lot of government support packages come out in the form of trial balloons. Basically, the federal government was trying to see what the best way to handle the situation would be.

Then we saw the Paulson GSE bail-out package come out:

First, as a liquidity backstop, the plan includes a temporary increase in the line of credit the GSEs have with Treasury. Treasury would determine the terms and conditions for accessing the line of credit and the amount to be drawn.

Second, to ensure the GSEs have access to sufficient capital to continue to serve their mission, the plan includes temporary authority for Treasury to purchase equity in either of the two GSEs if needed.


Use of either the line of credit or the equity investment would carry terms and conditions necessary to protect the taxpayer.

Third, to protect the financial system from systemic risk going forward, the plan strengthens the GSE regulatory reform legislation currently moving through Congress by giving the Federal Reserve a consultative role in the new GSE regulator's process for setting capital requirements and other prudential standards.


Note the breadth of this package. The Treasury would determine the terms and amount of the line of credit; but there is no mention at all of the possible amount. Secondly, the Treasury will essentially provide a floor for GSE stock by allowing the Treasury to buy GSE stock in the open market. This plan would essentially allow the Treasury department to prevent a GSE bankruptcy.

There are two possible explanations for this plan.

1.) Paulson is striking while the iron is still hot. He doesn't really need all of this money and authority relative to the GSEs, but he might as well ask for it now because he might need it in the future and Congress is in a giving mood right now. This is always a possibility with a package that involves politics.

2.) Paulson has seen the books and determined the GSEs are in serious trouble and he is trying to prevent a bankruptcy or something close to it. Personally, I think this is the real answer. the GSEs have been given way too much attention lately for this to not be the explanation.

5 comments:

Eric said...

"Use of either the line of credit or the equity investment would carry terms and conditions necessary to protect the taxpayer."

How is that possible considering the damage.

supersuper said...

I hope you're right and Paulson really is looking out for the GSEs' best interests. I liked what I watched over at Wallstrip (here: http://www.wallstrip.com/2008/07/21/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-fnm-fre/ ), which touched on different issues surrounding the stuation.

mcblogger said...

Actually, I'm not particularly worried about the subprime crap they larded on, mostly because I know where a lot of it came from and it's actually (for subprime:)), written to tougher guides. Plus, it was priced for a default rate in line with sp credits, 7-9%. Most of it is in the process of converting to FHA or, in some markets like Texas, conventional.

I'm also thinking there are going to be some big net positives in the near future as we start to hit the first delivery dates for loans originated with the new level adjusters. I would be very careful about shorting GSE's right now... in fact, I might be looking to start building into a long position. I say might because they will likely have to raise some capital and dilution is a big ?

The one thing I can tell you is that the problem is not really the performance of the private label sp credits. From what I've heard, the real problem is the 06 and 07 vintage Home Possible and MCM mortgages. The same ones that are crushing the MI cos. Those damn loans were subprime credits priced as A and given a discounted MI rate. Absolute disaster.

Chuck said...

Bank examiners from the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency are looking at the books of mortgage investors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...

Note the word "investors". That's what they are, plain and simple. And investors sometimes make money and sometimes lose money. That's the game.

No need for bailouts--they took a gamble and lost.

Anonymous said...

Tanta at CR supports what McBlogger says. She thinks that the standards at Fannie and Freddie-- but maybe not at the FHA-- mean that there will be few losses.

Even though she's the expert, I'm skeptical. If you were at the top of the political/financial system and you realized that the banking system was about to implode, what would you try to do? Presumably, offload as many bad loans onto government books as possible. The government, after all, can print money. When companies go bankrupt, they're gone. When they're banks, they create chaos in the lives of their customers. That's why we created the Depression-era regulation and how we ended the bank runs.

So there's motive and method. Tanta and McBlogger think there was no opportunity. I'd like to see.

--Charles of MercuryRising
www.phoenixwoman.wordpress.com