RSS Feed

a playground of art, photos, videos, writing, music, life


You are here

Random Quote

Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.
-- Cyril Connolly


Blog - Blog Archive by Month - Blog Archive by Tag - Search Blog and Comments

<-- Go to Previous Page


The Path to Responsibility, Part II


Why is there no private sector version of Fannie Mae? Why did Fannie Mae, a government-sponsored entity, become the big dog in home mortgages?

From Wikipedia and Mises:

Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.

In 1968, as a part of Lyndon Johnson's societal engineering agenda, Fannie was converted into a private corporation and the ability to guarantee government-issued mortgages was switched from Fannie to the federal government's newest creation, Ginnie Mae (Government National Mortgage Association). This meant that Fannie would begin to operate with private capital on a self-sustaining basis. Fannie was growing up, and she was going on to bigger and better things.

In 1970, Richard Nixon authorized Fannie Mae to purchase conventional mortgages, launching a national secondary market for home mortgages. As Fannie's foray into the conventional mortgage market began to surge upward, in the 1980s it began to purchase second mortgages and adjustable-rate mortgages, and it also commenced its mortgage-backed securities scheme.

It started out as a government-sponsored entity in the Depression, blossomed into a government-esque entity that could accept private funding while getting subsidies from the federal government. The implicit guarantee here is that the government will stand behind Fannie Mae.

I recently became a bank, myself. I loaned my money out, at $50 each to four borrowers, at an average of 18% interest for three-year terms. That sounds like an amazing rate, doesn't it? I think most people, when they hear of an 18% interest rate, think that's better than a stock return - especially since it's a locked rate for as long as the borrower pays me back.

But it's actually quite the opposite of an investment. And that 18%? It's not what it seems. Follow the math...

If I put money into an account that returns 18% anually, then my principle becomes larger with time. My $50 becomes $59 at the end of the first year, almost $70 by the end of the second year, and over $80 by the end of the third year. That's a whopping 64% return!

But if I loan it out, interest only accrues on the principle that remains, which is paid down over time. At the end of three years, my $50 only grows to become $65 when I loan it out at 18%. In three years' time, it's a 30% return. Still quite good, but only half that of an investment. That's a very distinct difference.

Nobody borrows money for a house at 18%. The going rate? For the sake of this discussion, let's say it's 6.5%. If I loaned my money out at that conventional rate, then I barely make a 10% return in three years. If inflation is a modest 3% annually, it's a wash. My money didn't grow relative to the market.

So I'll ask the question I started with: why is there no private sector version of Fannie Mae? Because at these rates, there is no real profit. No one is business would do this. It's a recipe for bankrupcy, which is why subsidies are the only way this could work for decades. It's all been a big taxpayer-subsidized smokescreen, and we're about to pay for it.

There was a way to make money on this, but the numbers still didn't add up, and I'll go into that in Part III.


by Brett Rogers, 9/22/2008 11:42:20 AM



Add Your Comment:
Name (required):
Web Site:
Remember Me:   
Content: (4000 chars remaining)
To prevent spammers from commenting, please give a one-word answer to the following trivia question:

What's the first name of the tiger who pitches Frosted Flakes?