Examiner Editorial: Get government out of the mortgage business

It's time for a fundamental rethinking of the federal government's role in the mortgage industry.

The importance of doing so was highlighted last week when the National Association of Realtors reported a 27 percent decline in home sales in July, compared to June, reaching the lowest point since NAR started tracking the numbers in 1999. The association's chief economist, Lawrence Yun, said the decline may continue in coming months, but he added that “a sales recovery could pick up quickly, provided the economy consistently adds jobs.”

Such optimism about job creation rests on shaky foundations: The Labor Department reported last week that the four-week average of people filing first-time claims for unemployment benefits remained high at 486,750. And total unemployment — counting the underemployed and those who have given up looking for work — is still near 20 percent.

With so many unemployed, growing legions of people simply can't afford to buy homes. But don't tell that to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration, through which the federal government now holds 90 percent of all mortgages in the United States. Fannie and Freddie have cost taxpayers almost $150 billion in direct government bailouts since they were seized by the government two years ago. There's also the trillions more they cost taxpayers by sparking the Great Recession of 2008.

Worst of all, spending and mortgage guarantees at Fannie and Freddie aren't even “on the budget.” The two “government-sponsored enterprises” are where transparency and things like Freedom of Information Act requests go to die.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner only partially understands this reality. In his Aug. 17 address to a conference on the “future of housing finance,” he described Fannie and Freddie as part of a “general race to the bottom in standards,” lowering their underwriting requirements and “providing guarantees for increasingly risky types of mortgages without charging nearly enough to cover the risk.” But this, he felt, was to “maximize short-term returns to shareholders and senior management.” Doing that was possible only because of a “perceived guarantee by the government and an absence of effective oversight,” according to Geithner.

But there was nothing merely perceived about this guarantee. The government created these entities to encourage “affordable housing,” using taxpayer backing to push banks to make riskier loans. A bunch of Fannie and Freddie's shareholders and politically well-connected senior executives made out like bandits in the process, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. So Geithner's “effective oversight” is, at best, a mere diversion and more likely another regulatory joke.

It's time for a more honest approach: Either we begin to privatize Fannie and Freddie or leave American taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars of other peoples' mistakes. There's no middle ground.

editorialsOpinion

Just Posted

Pharmacist Hank Chen is known for providing personalized service at Charlie’s Pharmacy in the Fillmore.<ins> (Kevin N. Hume/The Examiner)</ins>
Left: A Walgreens at 300 Gough St. is among San Francisco stores closing.
Walgreens closures open the door for San Francisco’s neighborhood pharmacies

‘I think you’ll see more independents start to pop up’

San Franciscans are likely to have the opportunity to vote in four different elections in 2022. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Electionpalooza: SF school board recall will kick off a flurry of local races

‘It’s going to be a lot of elections and a lot of decisions for voters to make’

Four young politicos were elected to city government on the Peninsula in 2020. From left: Redwood City Councilmember Michael Smith; South San Francisco Councilmember James Coleman; Redwood City Councilmember Lissette Espinoza-Garnica; and East Palo Alto Councilmember Antonio Lopez.<ins> (Examiner illustration/Courtesy photos)</ins>
Progressive politicians rise to power on the Peninsula. Will redistricting reverse the trend?

‘There’s this wave of young people really trying to shake things up’

The fate of San Francisco nicotine giant Juul remains to be seen, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reviewing whether to allow certain flavored vape products on the market. <ins>(Jeenah Moon/New York Times)</ins>
How the vape king of teen nicotine addiction rose and fell in San Francisco

‘Hey, Juul, don’t let the door hit you on the way out’

Most Read