By on September 5, 2008

The Washington Post reports that Uncle Sam is set to take yank the chain of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “The government has formulated a plan to put troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under federal control, dismiss their top executives, and use government funds to prop them up, government officials told the two companies yesterday, according to sources familiar with the conversations.” It’s a bailout, but not as we know it. “Under the plan, the federal government would place the firms in a legal state known as conservatorship, the sources said. The value of the company’s common stock would be diluted but not wiped out while the holdings of other securities, including company debt and preferred shares, would be protected by the government.” To avoid sticker shock, the feds will “invest” your money in stages. “Instead of giving each company a big capital infusion up front, the government plans to make quarterly infusions as the companies’ losses warrant, the sources said. This would be an attempt to minimize the initial cost of the rescue.” Clearly, this is the template for the “real” Detroit bailout, once they piss-away $50b in federal low-interest loans. Either that, or it will lead to “bailout fatigue” that will torpedo the D2.8’s chances of taxpayer rescue.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

26 Comments on “Bailout Watch 26: Feds Take Over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...”


  • avatar
    srclontz

    I’m glad we believe in the free market here in the good ole USA, where we get our bailouts for nothing and our currency for free.

  • avatar
    Nemphre

    At least it’s better than leaving the Big3 executive structure intact. If they’re going to bail them out anyway…

  • avatar
    50merc

    “Instead of giving each company a big capital infusion up front, the government plans to make quarterly infusions as the companies’ losses warrant…”

    That’s not just to ease the current-year budgetary hit. It’s sensible. If FDIC had adopted that approach back in the 80’s, instead of arbitrarily and immediately calling loans, many banks could have eventually gotten back on their feet. The feds attitude was akin to comparing a homeowner’s current wage to his mortgage balance, and upon finding the loan exceeded his paycheck, demanded the entire balance be paid that afternoon.

  • avatar
    Robstar

    Sweet! As a renter, unable to afford a house, my taxes will go to prop up other peoples mortgages!

  • avatar
    ctoan

    Robstar
    You might not own a house, but your landlord does, and the condition of his mortgage and the housing market are going to directly affect what you pay and whether you have anywhere to live or not.

    On the main subject, how is this bailout a bad thing? I’m nothing approaching an expert, but my impression has been that it would be a Bad Thing if those two companies failed, given the amount of money they control.

  • avatar
    Adub

    The big scandal is that Fannie May and Freddie Mac were supposed to repackage and sell the mortgage backed securities (MBS’s) to other parties, thus spreading the risk to other parties. However, both companies decided they could make more money holding MBS’s, not just selling them. The result was that they took on more risk than they could handle.

    At least somebody is getting fired. Red Ink Rick will never yield.

  • avatar
    ppellico

    We are not a free people.

    We do not live in a true capitalistic society.

    People do not suffer the consequences of their wrong and deceitful ways.

    Bill Clinton, politicians or the corrupt bastards from the savings and loan disaster.

    Now these evil, greedy bastards will get “dismissed” while we once again bail out their shareholders.
    We just finished with giving money to those over their heads in bad loans.
    Loans THEY got and homes THEY got, but should not have.

    So, if it’s not being cruel like I am accused of always being, why CAN’T the thieves be put away?
    Why CAN’T the shareholder suffer from their investments?

    What ever happened to a good old public caning?
    Perhaps a head-lock in the center of tow for all to see?

    What is so wrong with a company failing if it’s all built upon lies?

  • avatar
    ppellico

    srclontz
    Pretty good…
    Just reread it and busted out laughing.

  • avatar
    quasimondo

    What is so wrong with a company failing if it’s all built upon lies?

    Nothing, unless you enjoy playing ‘chicken’ with a train.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    The Detroit-3 should be able to reduce the risk premium they are paying on borrowed money with a government bailout.

  • avatar
    mel23

    The reason Freddie and Fannie are being bailed out is that so much of ‘their’ money is from offshore. Scare/piss off these people and they might take their money and go home. That’s happening gradually as is, but accelerating that process might/would cause this house of card to collapse very quickly.

    Franklin Raines et al. have their millions tucked safely under their mattresses or in other currencies is my guess, so they’re off scott free. I assume the current ‘leaders’ will do almost as well. I wonder what the terms are of Rick’s parachute should something like this happen. If he’s not protected, I suspect the lawyers are in the offices NOW changing things so he will be.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    What is so wrong with a company failing if it’s all built upon lies?

    If that company’s failure leads to an implosion of the entire economy, then it hurts a lot more people and businesses than just the shareholders.

    Allowing Fannie and Freddie to simply fail would be a nuclear bomb for the economic system, not just the shareholders of those two outfits. When people say that they are “too big to fail,” what they really mean is that they are too big for the rest of us to allow them to fail, because their failure would come at our expense.

    Assuming that the Big 2.8 don’t get what they want (and I don’t think that they will), I suspect that a GM bailout will resemble something like this, but with the existing shareholders of common stock taking an even bigger hit than the Fannie and Freddie holders would in this scenario. They will need to sell off the equity to raise capital to support the deal, but that must come at the expense of the current shareholders.

    Instead of giving each company a big capital infusion up front, the government plans to make quarterly infusions as the companies’ losses warrant

    That makes sense, as it allows there to be strings attached to getting the money. Instead of giving them a lump sum and having them possibly squander it, they have to produce a plan and budget and show that they can hit their targets before getting more money. This is more likely to produce a better plan, because if they promise unrealistic goals that won’t be met, the money will get cut off when the fail to hit their first target.

  • avatar

    srclontz, don’t you mean money for nothing and your chicks for free?

  • avatar
    srclontz

    ferrarimanf355, maybe, what I really mean is that we are going to print money and/or acquire debt to pay for all of this like some sort of Banana Republic.

  • avatar

    No, no, no, I mean with the spate of musical references on this blog at one point…

  • avatar
    srclontz

    I think all of these bailouts are putting the country on the highway to hell! What can I say? Nobody loves my musical references, but my mother, and she could be jivin’ too….

  • avatar
    Geotpf

    I don’t think there will ever be a direct Detroit 3 bailout. All somebody has to say is “American Leyland” and a full fledged bailout (as opposed to government backed loans, etc.) will die.

  • avatar
    Robert Schwartz

    Calm down Fannie/Freddie are not real corporations they were chartered by the Federal Government with the express purpose of extending mortgage credit. They have always acted as and been treated as Federal agencies. The conservatorship just makes that real.

    The good news is that the act of the drama is the sacrifice of the CEOs and Boards of Bystanders. We can only hope that is the prelude to the Big 2.8 bailout.

  • avatar
    philipwitak

    re: “Nobody loves my musical references, but my mother, and she could be jivin’ too”
    srclontz / September 6th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    don’t you mean ‘jive talkin?’

  • avatar
    philipwitak

    re: “Calm down Fannie/Freddie are not real corporations…”
    Robert Schwartz / September 6th, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    uh, technically speaking, freddie and fannie are real corporations. until recently, their backing by the federal government was only implied, not explicit.

    you do realize that the taxpayers are getting screwed once again don’t you? the impact of this is going to ripple through our economy and negatively affect just about everybody.

    of course the guys at the top usually get to have it both ways. internalize the profits. externalize the costs.

  • avatar
    ppellico

    Pch101 says:
    September 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
    What is so wrong with a company failing if it’s all built upon lies?

    If that company’s failure leads to an implosion of the entire economy, then it hurts a lot more people and businesses than just the shareholders.

    I reply…
    Well, I enjoy a funny come back as much as anybody.
    But please try to add to the discussion.
    An implosion of the entire economy?

    This is as silly as hearing people say we humans are responsible for the rising temperature of the earth.
    Somehow, many of us simply cannot get a grip of our lowly position and importance in the big picture.

    Accept the fact that you and events seem larger than they really are in the mirror.
    And Fannie/Freddie have as much REAL importance on the entire economy as Bonnie/Clyde.

    The fact that you think as much is all they need to scare you into opening you wallet and giving more and more of YOUR money to help others.

    Capitalism works BETTER when failures are not rewarded.

    Whatever effect their failure might have Large or small, they need to suffer the consequences of their actions and policies.
    We do not.

    But please humor me…IF I have to give money, at least let me cast a stone. It feels real good to hit something sometimes.

  • avatar
    capeplates

    Lets hope they make a better go of it than the UK governments takeover of Northern Rock – six months on and we still dont know the true cost to the tax payer!

  • avatar
    mimizhusband

    This is the moment to reduce the influence of the government in housing, but instead the Feds are increasing it. When the loan amounts covered should slowing by going down to cover only the least expensive of entry-level homes, now the massive loans are being covered by… basically the value of the currency. Everyone paid in dollars is footing this bill.

    Too bad I can’t be paid in Euros, I might be able to buy that BMW my daughter wants, and go to Europe for vacation to see it role off the assembly line. As it is, my worthless dollars mean she drives our used Sienna to school. The Horror! I hear about it from her every day.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    The fact that you think as much is all they need to scare you into opening you wallet and giving more and more of YOUR money to help others.

    You’re just factually wrong. Most of the US mortgage market runs through Fannie and Freddie. That ultimately feeds much of the US’ GDP growth, for it is heavily dependent upon consumer spending.

    I would personally like to downshift their involvement in the markets over the long run, as they certainly helped to create the bubble that is bursting as we speak. But over the short run, we are headed for a cliff, and the feds have no choice but to intervene. Not for their sakes, but for ours.

    Once upon a time, the government assumed an ostrich approach to these matters. That head-in-the-sand denial created the Great Depression. They are trying to avoid that again, and that’s the responsible thing to do. Anonymous internet ideologues are not going to step up to fix the gaping hole when their theories prove not to be true.

  • avatar
    mel23

    Once upon a time, the government assumed an ostrich approach to these matters.

    But with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, and other deregulatory measures, the govt has just stuck its head in the sand on the front end of these disasters which leads to where we are. At the fore of these moves has been Phil Gramm, former McCain financial adviser of ‘the recession is mental; the US is a nation of whiners’ fame.

  • avatar

    sounds like state control of business . . . i.e. communism – to me.

    Isn’t it funny, that as the economy keeps losing jobs, the government adds 60,000 new jobs PER MONTH.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
  • theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
  • A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
  • Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
  • Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber