- Friday, October 3, 2008
- Subscriber Log In
Subscriber Log In
- Home
- U.S.
- World
- Business
- Markets
- Tech
- Personal Finance
- Life & Style
- Opinion
- Careers
- Real Estate
- Small Business
-
Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit www.djreprints.com
See a sample reprint in PDF format. Order a reprint of this article now
- OPINION
- OCTOBER 3, 2008
How Government Stoked the Mania
Housing prices would never have risen so high without multiple Washington mistakes.
By RUSSELL ROBERTS
Many believe that wild greed and market failure led us into this sorry mess. According to that narrative, investors in search of higher yields bought novel securities that bundled loans made to high-risk borrowers. Banks issued these loans because they could sell them to hungry investors. It was a giant Ponzi scheme that only worked as long as housing prices were on the rise. But housing prices were the result of a speculative mania. Once the bubble burst, too many borrowers had negative equity, and the system collapsed.
Part of this story is true. The fall in housing prices did lead to a sudden increase in defaults that reduced the value of mortgage-backed securities. What's missing is the role politicians and policy makers played in creating artificially high housing prices, and artificially reducing the danger of extremely risky assets.
Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.
For 1996, HUD required that 12% of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be "special affordable" loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area's median income. That number was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28%. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down.
Fannie and Freddie also purchased hundreds of billions of subprime securities for their own portfolios to make money and to help satisfy HUD affordable housing goals. Fannie and Freddie were important contributors to the demand for subprime securities.
Congress designed Fannie and Freddie to serve both their investors and the political class. Demanding that Fannie and Freddie do more to increase home ownership among poor people allowed Congress and the White House to subsidize low-income housing outside of the budget, at least in the short run. It was a political free lunch.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) did the same thing with traditional banks. It encouraged banks to serve two masters -- their bottom line and the so-called common good. First passed in 1977, the CRA was "strengthened" in 1995, causing an increase of 80% in the number of bank loans going to low- and moderate-income families.
Fannie and Freddie were part of the CRA story, too. In 1997, Bear Stearns did the first securitization of CRA loans, a $384 million offering guaranteed by Freddie Mac. Over the next 10 months, Bear Stearns issued $1.9 billion of CRA mortgages backed by Fannie or Freddie. Between 2000 and 2002 Fannie Mae securitized $394 billion in CRA loans with $20 billion going to securitized mortgages.
By pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country, politicians could push for increases in home ownership and urban development without having to commit budgetary dollars. Another political free lunch.
Fannie and Freddie and the banks opposed these policy changes at first through both lobbying and intransigence. But when they found out that following these policies could be profitable -- which they were as long as rising housing prices kept default rates unusually low -- their complaints disappeared. Maybe they could serve two masters. They turned out to be wrong. And when Fannie and Freddie went into conservatorship, politicians found out that budgetary dollars were on the line after all.
While Fannie and Freddie and the CRA were pushing up the demand for relatively low-priced property, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 increased the demand for higher valued property by expanding the availability and size of the capital-gains exclusion to $500,000 from $125,000. It also made it easier to exclude capital gains from rental property, further pushing up the demand for housing.
The Fed did its part, too. In 2003, the federal-funds rate hit 40-year lows of 1.25%. That pushed the rates on adjustable loans to historic lows as well, helping to fuel the housing boom.
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and low interest rates -- along with the regulatory push for more low-income homeowners -- dramatically increased the demand for housing. Between 1997 and 2005, the average price of a house in the U.S. more than doubled. It wasn't simply a speculative bubble. Much of the rise in housing prices was the result of public policies that increased the demand for housing. Without the surge in housing prices, the subprime market would have never taken off.
Fannie and Freddie played a significant role in the explosion of subprime mortgages and subprime mortgage-backed securities. Without Fannie and Freddie's implicit guarantee of government support (which turned out to be all too real), would the mortgage-backed securities market and the subprime part of it have expanded the way they did?
Perhaps. But before we conclude that markets failed, we need a careful analysis of public policy's role in creating this mess. Greedy investors obviously played a part, but investors have always been greedy, and some inevitably overreach and destroy themselves. Why did they take so many down with them this time?
Part of the answer is a political class greedy to push home-ownership rates to historic highs -- from 64% in 1994 to 69% in 2004. This was mostly the result of loans to low-income, higher-risk borrowers. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, abetted by Congress, trumpeted that rise as it occurred. The consequence? On top of putting the entire financial system at risk, the hidden cost has been hundreds of billions of dollars funneled into the housing market instead of more productive assets.
Beware of trying to do good with other people's money. Unfortunately, that strategy remains at the heart of the political process, and of proposed solutions to this crisis.
Mr. Roberts is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a scholar at the Mercatus Center. His latest book is a novel on how markets work, "The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity" (Princeton University Press, 2008).
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
- Printer Friendly
- Order Reprints
-
- Share:
Related Articles and Blogs from WSJ.com
Fannie Suit Vexes Regulator, May Pay Shareholders
OCT 18. 2008Fannie, Freddie Share Spotlight in Mortgage Mess
OCT 16. 2008Crisis Reverberates in Credit, Stock Markets
OCT 16. 2008No Quick Fix for Housing Prices
OCT 15. 2008
Related News From the Web
Email Newsletters and Alerts
The latest news and analysis delivered to your in-box. Check the boxes below to sign up.
Thank you !
You will receive in your inbox
Email Newsletters and Alerts
The latest news and analysis delivered to your in-box. Check the boxes below to sign up.
- New! To sign up for Keyword or Symbol Alerts click here.
- To view or change all of your email settings, visit the Email Setup Center.
Thank you !
You will receive in your inbox.
People Who Viewed This Also Viewed...
- Is This Thing On? McCain and Obama Trade Jokes in NYC19223233 (no summary)
- Dismissing Bob Barr, Ron Paul Endorses Constitution Party Candidate18909391 (no summary)
- Deflation, Ben Bernanke and the Famous Helicopter19236492 (no summary)
- The Incredibly Shrinking Hedge Fund Industry19223302 (no summary)
- Is Microsoft Making it Easy to Skip Vista?19223654 In one of the most anti-climactic announcements we can recall, Microsoft this week reveale...
- McCain Invites 'Joe the Plumber' to a Campaign Event19223880 Don't be surprised if "Joe the Plumber" shows up on the campaign trail with John McCain, ...Seen by 5 friends |Day Traders|Yale
- The Rich Support McCain, the Super-Rich Support Obama19168174 (no summary)Seen by 7 friends |Stock Junkies|Harvard
- Palin: 'We Shouldn't Worry About Government Not Having Enough Money'19209386 (no summary)Seen by 4 friends |Investment Banking|MIT
You're seeing a preview of SeenThis? — a Facebook application that helps you discover the latest news, videos and more by showing you what's popular with your friends — both on Facebook, and on sites like this one.
Have a Facebook account? Get recommendations for content popular with your friends by adding the SeenThis? app.
Once you've added it, look for the "Your Facebook Friends Are Reading" section in the sidebar.
More in Opinion
Most Popular
- 1.
FDIC Chief Raps Rescue for Helping Banks Over Homeowners68 comments
- 2.
Two Families Named McCain60 comments
- 3.
As Joe the Plumber Grows Famous, the Politics Get Murkier44 comments
- 4.
Obama, McCain Trade Jabs Over Taxes, Tone of Campaign44 comments
- 5.
Now Boarding: Illegal Immigrants On One-Way Tickets Home36 comments
Journal Community
Hello
Your question to the Journal Community Your comments on articles will show your real name and not a username.Why?
Why use your real name? The Journal Community encourages thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between real people. We require the use of your full name to authenticate your identity. The quality of conversations can deteriorate when real identities are not provided.
Create a Journal Community profile to avoid this message in the future. (As a member you agree to use your real name when participating in the Journal Community)
Notice:
Your participation access with Journal Community has been disabled due to violation of Journal Community Guidelines.
If you feel you have reached this status change in error, please contact TBD@wsj.com
- back to top
-
WSJ.com Account:
Help & Information Center:
-
About:
-
WSJ.com:
-
Tools & Formats:
-
Digital Network
- WSJ.com
- Marketwatch.com
- Barrons.com
- AllThingsD.com
- FiLife.com
- BigCharts.com
- Virtual Stock Exchange
- WSJ Asia
- WSJ Europe
Foreign language editions:
- WSJ Chinese
- WSJ Portuguese
- WSJ Spanish