UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (19) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next
Author: ptheland Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 127461  
Subject: Re: FYI: When Rules Collide Date: 7/13/2013 8:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
In other words, the Agencies (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) don't have huge stockpiles of money that it lends to consumers through the go-between of the nation's lenders.

That's correct.

They only have the formerly implicit and now explicit backing of the US Federal government. You know - the guys who can just print money if they want.

More seriously - here's my point.

All of the mortgage money comes from investors. Today, my claim is that something in excess of 80% of investors money goes through Fannie/Freddie. (aj kindly came up with a source claiming 95%, but including a couple of additional agencies. The difference is immaterial for my argument.) From there, the money goes to "lenders" and finally to borrowers to buy real estate.

The other path is from investors directly to "lenders" to the borrower.

Here's the rub. When Fannie/Freddie get involved, the investors look to those agencies if things go wrong. They don't look any further down the money trail. With the vast majority of loans going through this path, there's no incentive for lenders to care about the quality of the loan. They only care about meeting the paperwork requirements to get Fannie or Freddie to back the loan. If they can show they did that job correctly, they bear no burden for bad loans.

In the alternative path - keeping Fannie/Freddie out of the picture - lenders bear a much higher burden. Now, if loans go bad, the investors look to the lender. So the lender now has an incentive to care about the quality of the loan and not just the quality of the paperwork.

I'd like to get incentives back to making sense. I'd like to see lenders with an incentive to make good loans, not just good paperwork.

Fannie and Freddie did a good job lending money when they were only involved in a smaller fraction of the loans - perhaps up to the 1995 level of 20% quoted in your rather old article. With them basically the only game in town today, mortgage lending is highly irrational - focused almost entirely on getting the right pieces of paper in the file instead of focused on making loans that will be repaid.

--Peter
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (19) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next

Announcements

Useful Resources
Our Home Center has all you need to make buying and owning a home a great experience. Get or refinance a mortgage and much more!
Buying/Selling a Home FAQ

Mortgage Professor
Offsite resource for mortgage questions.
Post of the Day:
Macro Economics

U.S. Stable, Europe Stalling
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement