US government bails out mortgage giants

By Nick Beams
14 July 2008

The crisis in the US financial system has taken a major turn for the worse with the announcement on Sunday that the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board are to take emergency action to prop up mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Under the rescue plan, Congress will be asked to pass legislation to increase the line of credit to Fannie and Freddie—the amount and terms to be decided later—as well as providing the authority for the government to purchase equity if needed. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has granted the Federal Reserve Bank of New York authority to lend directly to the two companies “should such lending prove necessary.”

Announcing the measures after a weekend of hectic discussions with bankers, financial institutions and Congressional leaders, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the two companies played a “central role in our housing finance system” and their “support for the housing market is particularly important as we work through the current housing correction.” There were fears that had the intervention not been made Freddie Mac may have had difficulty in a planned sell-off of $3 billion in debt scheduled for today.

Like the Bear Stearns rescue operation in March, the timing of the announcement was meant to allay fears before global markets opened for the week. Paulson said the international reach of the two “government sponsored enterprises” (GSE) necessitated the unprecedented action.

“GSE debt is held by financial institutions around the world. Its continued strength is important to maintaining confidence and stability in our financial system and our financial markets,” he said.

The emergency action came after a week of stock market turmoil that saw the stocks of the two firms plunge by up to 50 percent as fears grew that they were too poorly capitalized to meet losses incurred as a result of the collapse of the US housing market.

Between them Fannie and Freddie hold or guarantee more than $5 trillion out of the $12 trillion US mortgage market.

Fannie Mae—the Federal National Mortgage Association—was set up in 1938 by the Roosevelt administration to try to boost the housing market during the Great Depression. In 1968 it was given a new charter by Congress and became a publicly traded company that could seek funding from the private sector. Freddie Mac—the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation—was created by Congress in 1970 as a competitor for Fannie.

Because they were set up by legislation, the two companies have been regarded as having an implicit government guarantee—a perception that has enabled them to borrow funds at lowered rates in the market. Over the past three decades, both firms have grown rapidly to the extent that their holdings and guarantee of mortgage debt is even larger than the $4,500 billion US Treasury market.

While they have not been directly involved in the sub-prime market, the rapid decline in US housing prices—the steepest since the Great Depression—has caused the two firms to suffer a loss of $11 billion over the past nine months, raising concerns about the adequacy of their capital.

Those concerns were heightened last Wednesday when the former St. Louis Federal Reserve President William Poole said the chances were increasing that the two mortgage companies would have to be bailed out. He said Freddie Mac owed $5.2 billion more than its assets were worth in the first quarter, making it technically insolvent. The “fair value” of Fannie Mae’s assets had fallen 66 percent and could go negative in the next quarter, he said.

On Friday, the New York Times published a report that the two companies may be put into a “conservatorship” if their problems worsened. Under a conservatorship, regulators appoint a person or an entity to run the financial institution until stability is restored.

Fear about the viability of the two firms set off a round of discussions in government, financial and banking circles about emergency action. Paulson has insisted that so far as the administration is concerned it wants Freddie and Fannie to continue in their current form as “shareholder-owned companies.”

This is because the alternative—a full-scale takeover or nationalisation by the government—would have vast implications for the financial position of the US. Taking on the debts and obligations of Fannie and Freddie would mean a more than 50 percent increase of US sovereign debt virtually overnight, bringing the total to the equivalent of the US gross domestic product.

In a bid to bolster confidence, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd, told CNN on Sunday that Freddie and Fannie were both financially sound.

“What’s important here are facts,” he said. “And the facts are that Fannie and Freddie are in sound situation. They have more than adequate capital—in fact, more than the law requires. They have access to capital markets. They’re in good shape. The chairman of the Federal Reserve has said as much. The secretary of the treasury has said as much.”

Given the experiences of the past year, such “boosterism” will not cut much ice. As the Wall Street Journal commented caustically in response to similar remarks by Dodd last week, the senate chairman claimed that the companies were so safe that the Fed might have to rescue them.

Last Thursday Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and Paulson, appearing before the House Financial Services Committee, emphasised that the regulator of Fannie and Freddie, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, had found that both companies were adequately capitalised. Similar assurances were also given about Bear Stearns just days before it was taken over.

While attention has focused on Fannie and Freddie, the depth of the US housing and financial crisis has been underscored by the collapse of IndyMac Bank in California.

The Pasadena-based mortgage lender, which had $32 billion in assets, was seized by federal regulators on Friday following an 11-day $1.3 billion run on its funds. IndyMac, which specialised in Alt-A loans to borrowers who did not fully document their assets or their income, ranked as the ninth largest US mortgage lender by volume.

The collapse of the bank—the third largest failure in US banking history after the demise of Continental Illinois in 1984 and the American Saving and Loan Association of Stockton in 1988—is expected to cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation between $4 billion and $8 billion. This is a sizeable chunk of its $53 billion deposit insurance fund, which is expected to be called on again as more banks go under.

Besides pointing to the sheer size of the financial crisis, the Fannie-Freddie rescue operation has underscored the speed with which it is unfolding. On Thursday, Paulson and Bernanke told Congress that they were not seeking new legislation. Just three days later, an emergency package is to be brought forward with no guarantee that further measures will not be required even in the next few days.

See Also:
Bernanke, Paulson testify before Congress: Democrats cower before Wall Street
[12 July 2008]
US foreclosure filings rose 53 percent in June
[11 July 2008]
Bernanke, Paulson outline strategy to make working class pay for Wall Street crisis
[10 July 2008]

Independent.co.uk

USA 2008: The Great Depression

Food stamps are the symbol of poverty in the US. In the era of the credit crunch, a record 28 million Americans are now relying on them to survive – a sure sign the world's richest country faces economic crisis

By David Usborne in New York
Tuesday, 1 April 2008

We knew things were bad on Wall Street, but on Main Street it may be worse. Startling official statistics show that as a new economic recession stalks the United States, a record number of Americans will shortly be depending on food stamps just to feed themselves and their families.

Dismal projections by the Congressional Budget Office in Washington suggest that in the fiscal year starting in October, 28 million people in the US will be using government food stamps to buy essential groceries, the highest level since the food assistance programme was introduced in the 1960s.

The increase – from 26.5 million in 2007 – is due partly to recent efforts to increase public awareness of the programme and also a switch from paper coupons to electronic debit cards. But above all it is the pressures being exerted on ordinary Americans by an economy that is suddenly beset by troubles. Housing foreclosures, accelerating jobs losses and fast-rising prices all add to the squeeze.

Emblematic of the downturn until now has been the parades of houses seized in foreclosure all across the country, and myriad families separated from their homes. But now the crisis is starting to hit the country in its gut. Getting food on the table is a challenge many Americans are finding harder to meet. As a barometer of the country's economic health, food stamp usage may not be perfect, but can certainly tell a story.

Michigan has been in its own mini-recession for years as its collapsing industrial base, particularly in the car industry, has cast more and more out of work. Now, one in eight residents of the state is on food stamps, double the level in 2000. "We have seen a dramatic increase in recent years, but we have also seen it climbing more in recent months," Maureen Sorbet, a spokeswoman for Michigan's programme, said. "It's been increasing steadily. Without the programme, some families and kids would be going without."

But the trend is not restricted to the rust-belt regions. Forty states are reporting increases in applications for the stamps, actually electronic cards that are filled automatically once a month by the government and are swiped by shoppers at the till, in the 12 months from December 2006. At least six states, including Florida, Arizona and Maryland, have had a 10 per cent increase in the past year.

In Rhode Island, the segment of the population on food stamps has risen by 18 per cent in two years. The food programme started 40 years ago when hunger was still a daily fact of life for many Americans. The recent switch from paper coupons to the plastic card system has helped remove some of the stigma associated with the food stamp programme. The card can be swiped as easily as a bank debit card. To qualify for the cards, Americans do not have to be exactly on the breadline. The programme is available to people whose earnings are just above the official poverty line. For Hubert Liepnieks, the card is a lifeline he could never afford to lose. Just out of prison, he sleeps in overnight shelters in Manhattan and uses the card at a Morgan Williams supermarket on East 23rd Street. Yesterday, he and his fiancée, Christine Schultz, who is in a wheelchair, shared one banana and a cup of coffee bought with the 82 cents left on it.

"They should be refilling it in the next three or four days," Liepnieks says. At times, he admits, he and friends bargain with owners of the smaller grocery shops to trade the value of their cards for cash, although it is illegal. "It can be done. I get $7 back on $10."

Richard Enright, the manager at this Morgan Williams, says the numbers of customers on food stamps has been steady but he expects that to rise soon. "In this location, it's still mostly old people and people who have retired from city jobs on stamps," he says. Food stamp money was designed to supplement what people could buy rather than covering all the costs of a family's groceries. But the problem now, Mr Enright says, is that soaring prices are squeezing the value of the benefits.

"Last St Patrick's Day, we were selling Irish soda bread for $1.99. This year it was $2.99. Prices are just spiralling up, because of the cost of gas trucking the food into the city and because of commodity prices. People complain, but I tell them it's not my fault everything is more expensive."

The US Department of Agriculture says the cost of feeding a low-income family of four has risen 6 per cent in 12 months. "The amount of food stamps per household hasn't gone up with the food costs," says Dayna Ballantyne, who runs a food bank in Des Moines, Iowa. "Our clients are finding they aren't able to purchase food like they used to."

And the next monthly job numbers, to be released this Friday, are likely to show 50,000 more jobs were lost nationwide in March, and the unemployment rate is up to perhaps 5 per cent.