Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: Fannie Mae

16736_3.24_000012425958XSmall

By Mira Korber, guest blogger.

Last week I asked some house painters how their business was doing and I was a bit surprised to hear their answer. They couldn’t buy brushes and rollers fast enough to keep up with the numbers of jobs on the schedule.

I hadn’t realized that  house painting could be profitable in a tough economy. If you are painting the right houses, that is. Specifically, foreclosures.

Let’s go back to September 2008 to begin. On September 7th, the US government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises (GSE’s) that owned most of the bad debt associated with the subprime mortgage housing crisis. As home-owners defaulted on their loans, Fannie and Freddie could no longer afford to pay investors who had purchased the subprime mortgages, and tax payers took over their obligations through the government bailout.

Since the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it became responsible for the ever-growing number of foreclosed homes that accompany them. Because of this, Americans now own 200,000 foreclosures that will cost taxpayers $40 million in upkeep over the next year (Yahoo Finance).

In order to sell foreclosed homes, it makes sense that their appearances must remain coiffed, but that means taxpayers have a hefty lawn, flower-planting, and painting bill to swallow. A presentable house helps preserve already sinking home values, yet leaves everyone else in the neighborhood with burgeoning expenses.

Complicating matters, not all foreclosed homes are evenly maintained. A recent study cited in the WSJ  shows that houses in poor or minority are 42% more likely to have inconsistent maintenance than those in wealthier suburbs. (Speaking of which, a foreclosed property on my street — I live in a rural area — has not been touched in months.)

The Bottom Line: Even in a depressed housing market, some home-improvement businesses can capitalize on increased job opportunities because of the volume of foreclosures. However, as painters, landscapers, and handymen spruce up vacant homes, they aren’t cutting down on taxpayers’ grass maintenance bills.

Interesting sources on the subject can be found here:

Econlife, two years ago on foreclosures, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and lawns. How minority communities and maintenance mix, from the WSJ.  NBC San Diego, on banks that aren’t properly maintaining foreclosures. Foreclosure.com, if you’d like some visuals on just how many foreclosures there are. Yahoo Finance article with recent stats. NPR on lawn mowing and foreclosure last summer.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

15717_6.22_000009810041XSmall

Each of us is helping to pay a $10 million monthly grass mowing bill. Why? Because of homes that are owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As GSE’s (government sponsored enterprises), Fannie and Freddie had purchased mortgages from financial institutions, sold the mortgages, and said they would guarantee them. When Fannie and Freddie ran out of money, tax payers became responsible for their obligations.

This is the way it works: John decides to buy a house. John gets a mortgage from a local mortgage broker. The broker sells John’s mortgage to Fannie Mae. Combining John’s mortgage with JoAnne’s and Jesse’s mortgages, Fannie Mae sells them as a package that pays interest to investors. When an investor asks Fannie about the mortgages, Fannie says, “Don’t worry. I will guarantee each one.” So, when John loses his job, defaults on his loan, and moves out of his house, Fannie rescues the investor by guaranteeing the payments that John had been making.

Meanwhile, Fannie got the house. As of the end of March, actually, Fannie and Freddie got 163,828 houses. Keeping insides clean and outsides neat cost them $1 billion last year. That means that it cost us $1 billion.

The Economic Lesson

Mowing a lawn brings to mind the “multiplier”. Assume that the contractor hired by Fannie had to purchase lawn mowers, and the lawn mower manufacturer hired extra workers, and those workers spent their paychecks on washing machines. Then the washing machine workers spent their paychecks on computers and the computer workers bought cars. Called the multiplier, this whole spending sequence happened because of the lawn mower maker. If a lawn mower cost $300 and $600 is added to the GDP because of the subsequent goods and service purchases the lawn mowers led to, then the multiplier is 2.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

15706_4.27_000010774987XSmall

I was surprised to hear that when Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as a federal agency, a part of her mission was to move money. At the time, because of the 1927 McFadden Act, interstate banking was prohibited. As a result, there could be (and was) insufficient money for mortgages in California and too much unused mortgage money on the East Coast. By buying mortgages from banks and brokers, Fannie Mae was able to move money to areas that needed it. Meanwhile, by selling the mortgages she purchased, she could attract funding from the areas that had it to lend.

Fundamentally, Fannie Mae was supposed to help people buy homes. During the 1930s, she made 30 year mortgages more common when 5 year mortgages were the norm. Yes, she typically required a 20% deposit and strict credit guidelines but she guaranteed the mortgages that she purchased. She let people live the American Dream.

30 years later, everything changed. In 1968, under President Johnson, Fannie Mae became a private corporation but retained a connection with government as a GSE (government sponsored enterprise). No longer a federal agency, she was a profit seeking business with stockholders. Still though, the federal government implicitly guaranteed the mortgages she purchased.

As a result, especially since 2003, when Congress asked her to assist the effort to extend home ownership, Fannie Mae reduced her credit requirements. Initially, profits and home ownership soared but both depended on home prices rising. When prices started to fall, recipients of NINJA mortgages (No Income, No Job or Assets) and 3% down payment mortgages defaulted. The result? The government’s implicit guarantee has become an $84 billion dollar bailout reality.

The Economic Lesson

Arthur Okun’s Equality and Efficiency:The Big Tradeoff (Brookings, 1975) discusses the tension between our democratic heritage and our economic aspirations. Equality implies a smaller economic pie while with efficiency we get a bigger pie and more individual wealth and power. 

Do you support the smaller pie that would accompany a government that facilitates widespread home ownership?

 

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment