Commentators

null -1° London Hi 5°C / Lo 2°C

Sean O'Grady: The world depends on the two Fs

Monday, 8 September 2008

"Too big to fail" is an expression that suits Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, said yesterday that the two institutions "are so large and interwoven in our financial system that a failure of either of them would create great turmoil in financial markets".

He was right. He might even have been understating things. For if Freddie and Fannie had been allowed to go under, the credit crunch so far would have been a mere prelude to a much more profound slump – one comparable to the Great Depression of the 1930s, the last time the banks stopped lending. Global financial turmoil would have been the start.

This is not hyperbole. It is terrifying to contemplate what the collapse of the (assumed) guarantees behind $5.3trn of US mortgages might have led to. Fannie and Freddie acted as middlemen between US banks, lending cash to homebuyers, and the investment community wanting to buy mortgage-backed bonds.

For decades, Freddie and Fannie took the banks' mortgage books and sold them on to investors looking for steady returns. They had been privatised long ago but their traditional links with government and their size made many assume the government backed them, with an assurance and a yield close to that attached to a US Treasury bond.

The status of Freddie and Fannie was always a tad unclear but that suited all sides. Borrowers could obtain cheaper funds (the safety of the US Treasury meant investors would accept a lower interest rate) and investors had never seen, nor imagined, a default on a Freddie or Fannie bond. Take that confidence away and you would engineer a further collapse in the US property market, more defaults and more foreclosures.

And in the US, unlike here, these are "non recourse" – when you hand the house keys to the bank you can walk away from the debt. Great for foolish homebuyers – not so much for banks with burgeoning bad debts, which in turn makes them unable to lend. And that is bad news for the economy, for jobs and, in a vicious circle, for the real estate market.

The vast quantities of Fannie and Freddie bonds held in just about every life insurance and pension policy and bank balance sheet across the globe would have been effectively trashed, creating more damage to the financial system and to the global economy.

For a lame-duck administration this is a bold move. Financially and politically it is on the scale of the bail-outs for the City of New York and the Chrysler Corporation under Ronald Reagan and the vast extensions of federal power during the Franklin Roosevelt era.

Ironically, it was the last serious US housing slump that led Roosevelt to establish Fannie Mae as a government agency in 1938. It is strange that, in the home of free enterprise, the state should again have to come to the rescue. But when you're too big to fail ...

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

16 Comments

Check out 'Zeitgeist the movie' for a full explanation. The big bankers are just turning the screw again as they have many times before.

Posted by Spandon | 09.09.08, 16:27 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

There was always enough smarties in the " lame-duck administration " to know what should have been fixed ages ago - they just got shouted down until the wheels fell off. But will the Conservators get the chance to do a proper job ? Stay tuned.

ps: The Govt. made money on the Chrysler bail-out eventually. Likewise, there's still lots of profit left in the mortgage business.

Posted by rogoz | 09.09.08, 01:44 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Harris Pohl, I like your list of financial woes - great! Didn't Marx (no relation) say something economic cannibalism at some stage?

Posted by Tom Marx | 08.09.08, 20:09 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

The current turmoil in the financial system, the subprime mortgage implosion, the credit crisis from the seizure in the asset-backed commercial papers market, the under capitalization of commercial and investment bank, the rating agency dysfunction, the insolvency of monocline (bond) insurers, the massive financial losses by the GSEs and a host of other financial problems percolating under the media radar, are the outcome, and not the cause, of this market turbulence. (See Perils of the debt-propelled economy, Asia Times Online, September 14, 2002.)Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, GSEs that have provided mortgage funds were privatized in 1968 on terms that would alter their social mandate and would inevitably lead them into financial trouble on a big scale. Finally but suddenly, these GSEs find themselves in danger of defaulting on their massive debts, upwards of US$5 trillion. Henry K liu Debt capitalism self-destructs.

Posted by harris Pohl | 08.09.08, 17:51 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

This evil abhoration of Bush's follies is disgusting. Over 300 billion pds per year in military spending, over 30 billion pds per month in trade deficit, now hundred of billions in tax payers coverage of corrupt real estate dealings at the top levels of finance. No wonder the rich and their flunkies love democracy(?).

Posted by Terence | 08.09.08, 14:08 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Good to know that when the going gets tough, the tough turn to FDR and Keynes for solutions.

If you can hear a whirring sound in the distance, by the way, that will be Milton Friedman rotating at meg-revs in his coffin.

Posted by Tom MacFarlane | 08.09.08, 12:34 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Ergo (as we already know from Northern Rock), the banks can take as many chances as they want to, for in the end, the taxpayer will always be there to pick up the pieces for them.

Ergo - the "free market" is a load of bollocks; "free" only for such enterprises to rob us blind when they are making money, and do the same again when they go broke.

Posted by Jeremy Poynton | 08.09.08, 11:21 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Posted By Roger....In America, and here in Britain, the politicians have sold out to big business. The gross profiteering, that’s been going on with government approval, is now a massive loss to the taxpayer: as it was always going to be. We are living in “Mugsborough”, and it won’t get any better until we face the fact that our political systems have become inherently corrupted by commercialism. It isn’t self correcting - WE have to do more than whinge. Go to democraticbritain.org.uk – ( Americans can do the same for themselves.)

I went to the site and it was one hell of a refreshing read.The idea of millions of people making a formal protest via the physical voting slip is a good idea.But it would have it's problems.Local officials would be told just to throw the voting slips in the bin,and if the movement did develop then the "paper" option would quickly be repaced by the "touch screen" option.
That aside I suggest all the jornalists here visit your site.it might educate them.

Posted by jim | 08.09.08, 11:04 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Yikes, the US has started pursuing a socialist approach towards governing the institutions overseeing housing after the colossal failure of neo-conservative financial policy. It's really a complete admission that their financial policy is flawed and a socialist one is safer for the country. They would never say this though (too many financially vested interests) and instead invent terms and mechanisms to brush over what is undeniably a fundamental switch to socialist financial policy (at least until the economic climate settles and the pyramid scheme which is neo-con financial policy can start again ready to grab more people's life savings).

Posted by Sam Hudson | 08.09.08, 10:02 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Oh! shock! horror! capitalism doesn't work.
It's interesting that many a journalist and commentator(and quite a few from this publication) have,over the last few years ,been broadcasting the demise of socialism .
The above article is a classic example of a journalist(?) who is totally bincapable of thinking outside the box.
The conclusions he draws is that we cant let the biggest parasite in history go to the wall because it will have devastating consequences...do you see how this journalist is thinking..he is STILL supporting a corrupt and unworkable system of economic organisation despite the fact that it had broken down beyond repair.
Journalist like this fall into two catergories.
1) They are deliberately out to beguile.
2)They are really sold on the efficiencies(!) of the capitalist system and are too thick to see beyond it.

Posted by jim | 08.09.08, 09:19 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

16 Comments