Special Report falsely suggested Fannie and Freddie chief perpetrators of "financial mess," Rep. Frank opposed stricter oversight
SUMMARY: Fox News host Brit Hume and correspondent Bret Baier suggested that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were heavily involved in the subprime mortgage market "years ago," and falsely suggested that Rep. Barney Frank has opposed stricter regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Neither Hume nor Baier noted that Fannie and Freddie were not active in the subprime market in 2003, or that Frank has supported and authored bills to strengthen oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
During the September 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume said, "Many financial analysts are saying that if mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been effectively regulated years ago, the supercharged subprime mortgage meltdown that led to the current financial mess would either never have happened or would have been nowhere near as severe." Purporting to, "examine the timeline. What were those warning signs? Who raised them? And who disputed them?" chief White House correspondent Bret Baier then falsely suggested that Rep. Barney Frank opposed stricter oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Baier aired two comments Frank made in 2003 expressing confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and asserted that oversight legislation "was blocked," while omitting entirely any mention of Frank's support for a bill in 2005 and, as chair of the committee, his spearheading legislation in 2007 to strengthen oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Contrary to Hume's suggestion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are largely responsible for the "current financial mess," economist Dean Baker recently reported that the accusation that "the financial crisis is attributable to the close government relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" is "obviously not true." He wrote: "Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector. They lost market share in the years 2002-2007, as the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded."
Indeed, in a 2006 Securities and Exchange Commission filing covering its activities in 2004, Fannie Mae stated (report available here): "We did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005." In the report, Fannie Mae also noted the growth of subprime lending and reported, "These trends and our decision not to participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages contributed to a significant loss in our share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances to private-label issuers during this period." In a 2006 Federal Reserve analysis, Souphala Chomsisengphet, a financial economist at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Anthony Pennington-Cross, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, reported that the value of the subprime market had increased from $65 billion in 1995 originations to $332 billion in 2003.
Moreover, Baier and Hume completely omitted any mention of Frank's efforts in passing legislation providing greater oversight of Fannie and Freddie. In 2005, Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, worked with committee chairman Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have established the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to oversee the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After voting for the bill in committee, Frank voted against final passage of the bill on the House floor, stating that he was doing so because an amendment to the bill on the House floor imposed certain restrictions on the kinds of nonprofit organizations that could receive funding under the bill.
Frank also said during the House's debate on the bill:
The committee voted on this bill. It is contentious as anything I would write, as anybody would write. It is a good bill which sets up a world-class regulator. Much of what has been said on that side I agree with. Then the Republican Study Committee, the most conservative Members of the House who appear to be able to run the House by using their influence with the majority leadership, an influence which does not seem to have changed since the majority leadership changed, they were able to take this bill hostage.
They tried to kill this whole thing. Members on their side now say, we are for doing this affordable housing. Well, then why did they try to kill it? There was an amendment to kill the whole affordable housing fund, not restricted. It lost 53 to 17, and so then they went to the majority leader and said we cannot win a fair fight. Hijack the bill.
In early 2007, as Media Matters for America previously documented, as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank sponsored H.R. 1427, a bill to create the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), granting that agency "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and directing it to reform the two companies' business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk. Among other things, Frank's legislation, titled the "Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007," directed the FHFA director to "ensure" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "operate[] in a safe and sound manner, including maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls" and to establish standards at those two entities for "management of credit and counterparty risk" and "management of market risk."
The legislation also required the FHFA director to "establish standards by which the portfolio holdings, or rate of growth of the portfolio holdings, of the enterprises will be deemed to be consistent with the mission and the safe and sound operations of the enterprises." In addition, it authorized the director to "require" a regulated entity "to dispose of or acquire any asset, if the Director determines that such action is consistent with the purposes of this Act or any of the authorizing statutes." In May 2007, the House passed H.R. 1427. The Senate did not act on the legislation.
The FHFA was eventually created after Congress incorporated provisions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said were "similar" to those of H.R. 1427 into the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which the president signed into law on July 30.
From the September 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BRIT HUME (host): Many financial analysts are saying that if mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been effectively regulated years ago, the supercharged subprime mortgage meltdown that led to the current financial mess would either never have happened or would have been nowhere near as severe.
Chief White House correspondent Bret Baier rejoins us now to examine the timeline. What were those warning signs? Who raised them? And who disputed them?
[begin video clip]
BAIER: The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001. The '02 budget request declares that the size of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is, quote, "a potential problem" because financial trouble and either one of them could, quote, "cause strong repercussions in financial markets."
In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie was upgraded to a systemic risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector. In fall of '03, the Bush administration was pushing Congress hard to create a new federal agency to regulate and supervise Fannie and Freddie, both government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs.
JOHN SNOW (former Treasury secretary): We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSEs and the safety and the soundness of their financial activities.
BAIER: But then-Treasury Secretary Snow was getting a lot of pushback from then-ranking member, now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Democratic Congressman Barney Frank.
FRANK: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis.
BAIER: In fact, Frank said the federal government should be encouraging Fannie and Freddie to do more to get low-income families into homes, and he believed too many people had a "sky is falling" mentality.
FRANK: The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing.
BAIER: The legislation was blocked. In 2005, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan added his voice on Fannie and Freddie, after Fannie leaders admitted major accounting screwups. Quote, "Enabling these institutions to increase in size -- and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes -- we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."
Adding later at another hearing on the topic --
GREENSPAN: If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency in crisis.
BAIER: But the two mortgage giants had staunch defenders. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said, quote, "I think Fannie and Freddie over the years have done an incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world. If you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they've done a very, very good job."
Senator John McCain co-sponsored legislation pushing for regulation, delivering a speech on the Senate floor in 2006. Quote, "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market, the GSEs need to be reformed without delay."
[end video clip]
BAIER: That bill made it out of the Senate Banking committee with a party-line vote. All of the Democrats voted against it. But fearing that they didn't have the votes to pass it, Republicans didn't even bring it up on the Senate floor. Senator Obama did not weigh in on that bill. Brit.
HUME: All right, Bret. Thank you very much.















Good lord, are the precious Democrats ever able to shoulder any responsibility for anything in MMFA's eyes. This is ridiculous. Nothing is ever their fault, they are never to blame, and their pristine hands are never involved. It's about time all these lawmakers and the Bush administration stop trying to say "not me", and grow up.
Including the blind partisans that enable them to do so.
Who was in charge of Congress and the Senate in 2003? I can say, that it wasn't the democrats. It's laughable that you guys are trying to blame this on "both" sides, when the republicans were the ones running the show, and have been the most frequent and vocal about non regulation, free markets, capitalism, and so on and so forth.
How can democrats be "socialists" and for non regulation at the same time. Republicans' heads must be spinning as they cry for the regulation they so bitterly opposed for so long. Go back, look at how some of us on here no doubt yelped about high CEO paychecks, and I remember (not on here but on other boards) being told by republicans that the CEOs deserved those big paychecks. They DRIVE the economy.
How is the party of free markets and non regulation not responsible for this again? Especially when they were the ones who relaxed the regulation laws that prompted a lot of this?
Simple. Because the Democrats are always the champion of so called "affordable housing", and by relaxing standards on Freddie and Fannie, more people, some who cannot afford it, would be able to get mortgages. And then when those people couldn't afford those mortgages, they can then blame it on predatory lenders....knowing all along that if they had tightened up the approvals on Fannie and Freddie they wouldn't have made it far easier for many these people with bad or little credit to go out and try and get a home loan.
The Dems played politics just as much as the Republicans. And now it's all coming home to roost and none of them want the blame. Tough, they all share it.
How about personal responsibility? Another carrot the right wing likes to throw out. Listen, are you telling me that some guy sitting in an office approving loans sees someone apply for a loan for say 500,000 when they're only making 40k/year that the company shouldn't be held responsible for that? That's what we're talking about here. We're not talking about affordable housing, we're talking about giving huge loans to people who couldn't afford them under the guise that they would have low payments if they signed up, and paid say, only interest and variable rates. Talk to some folks who were duped, and a lot of them will tell you that they thought they would pay the same amount for the entire length of their loan.
Again, democrats could not do the "relaxing" of the standards, the republicans were in charge. Remember? There were plenty of predatory lenders. And there were plenty of stupid people. I think that the folks who got loans they couldn't afford should be foreclosed on, because honestly, it's freakin' common sense.
I'm not saying that there isn't blame to go around, but remember who was running things from 1994 - 2006 in Congress.
Absolutely, I have already said there is plenty of blame to go around, but remember, some of these loans needed no backup, no income verification, nothing. So if you wanted a house and you made 40K a year, you could easily have put 100k a year and your buddy, your employer, or another coworker could maybe got a phone call saying, "Sure, Joe makes 100k a year".......done, stamp, mortgage approved. And whose fault is that? It's the politicians who relaxed Fannie and Freddie to let lenders take no doc loans, and the person lying about his or her income.
As I said, it was a mess waiting to happen, and for the upteenth time, they are all to blame.
Bear in mind, the home loan fiasco, while bad, is not the biggest thing going on. It's a small part of what is happening.
True, but the topic of this thread is Fannie and Freddie and the mortgage mess that is driving this financial crisis.
Tommy wrote:
>>Simple. Because the Democrats are always the champion of so called "affordable housing", and by relaxing standards on Freddie and Fannie, more people, some who cannot afford it, would be able to get mortgages.
I doubt it is that simple. MMFA posted an item a few days ago showing that the minority lending program actually was done responsibly.
And your cliches such as "Tough, they all share it," is a cliche, not an argument.
Also, is MMFA saying that they were wrong when indicating that Frank did not oppose stricter regulations when he actually did? Isn't that the point of this article, and NOT who is to blame overall?
tommy wrote:
>>It's about time all these lawmakers and the Bush administration stop trying to say "not me", and grow up.
Tommy, that's a rant, not an argument. Here, let's just change a few words:
"
Good lord, is the precious Tommy ever able to shoulder any responsibility for any conservative misinformation? This is ridiculous. Nothing is ever the fault of the media, they are never to blame, and their pristine hands are never involved. It's about time all the media and especially the main stream media stop trying to say "not me", and grow up.
Including the blind partisans that enable them to do so.
---
You see, ranting is easy.
Yes, I shoulder all responsibility for conservative misinformation within the media, does that make you feel better?
Oh, and your nothing but comical contrarion posts to whatever I say is quite the entertaining tidbit, even if it's utter nonsense most of the time. :)
Tommy wrote:
>>Oh, and your nothing but comical contrarion posts to whatever I say is quite the entertaining tidbit, even if it's utter nonsense most of the time. :)
Really? Because I didn't even use the word "comical." So I have no idea what you mean. But you were ranting instead of making a specific argument.
The content of your post, most of your posts actually, made me laugh, it was so ridiculous. Funnymanpants is indeed a perfect name for you, I will give you that.
Carry on.......
Tommy wrote:
>>The content of your post, most of your posts actually, made me laugh, it was so ridiculous. Funnymanpants is indeed a perfect name for you, I will give you that.
And I wonder why other posters ever bother to defend Tommy. Did you all see that little stunt? I point out that Tommy is ranting, and not providing an argument, and Tommy ends by saying all my posts are laughable and makes fun of my screen name.
Really, Tommy? That is your best contribution to this thread?
Tommy, bottom line - that oversight bill in 2002 (?) that mccain co-sponsored passed committee but was never scheduled for debate. Not vote, which comes after debate, strictly debate. Whether or not Dems have a share of blame bottom line is republicans controlled all three houses at the time and did not need a veto proof majority to pass that legislation, but chose to sit on it regardless. My opinion at this point is that it was just another lame grandstanding effort on republicans part to create a talking point.
This has become THE major talking point on local wingnut radio, that Frannie/Freddie/Franklin Raines/Obama are the ENTIRE cause of the financial meltdown. Frannie and Freddie are not blameless, but I think the description of them as more followers than leaders in this mess is accurate.
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
>>True, but the topic of this thread is Fannie and Freddie and the mortgage mess that is driving this financial crisis."
Tommy,
I think that you are being a bit dishonest when you justify your attack ("Good lord, are the precious Democrats ever able to shoulder any responsibility for anything in MMFA's eyes...") by claiming you're being guided by the topic of the thread [article] when in fact you are ignoring the actual topic.
The actual topic is:
'Special Report falsely suggested Fannie and Freddie chief perpetrators of "financial mess," [AND] Rep. Frank opposed stricter oversight'
So are you saying that Fannie and Freddie ARE the chief perpetrators of the current financial mess?
And, are you also saying that Rep. Barney Frank (a democrat) DID oppose stricter oversight?Oops, I used Word to spell check my post, and then copy/pasted it. I guess this also copied the document information at the top. AND, I just noticed the preview icon above - Darn! Won't happen again.
The GOP wants to talk about Freddie and Fannie so they can paint the problems with the credit markets as being a bi-partisan problem. They also get to blame minorities and poor people instead of the speculators and thugs running Wall Street.
in 2003-2004 Fannie & Freddie ramp up their lobbying in response to the attempt to put more legislation. You can verify this at opensecrets.org which publishes a detailed database of all lobbying activites.
They use this money to convince most Democrats in the house financal services subcommittee and some Republicans to block the legislation. The quid pro quo is that Fannie & Freddie will massively increase their support for low cost home ownership. There is plenty of video of the hearings that backs up the fact that Barney Frank and the rest of the democrats on the committe fought hard against more oversight.
In 2004-2006 they go on a buying spree of Wall Street paper littered with subprimes. This purchasse of this paper fuels the ability to originate subprimes. They don't buy and hold this paper and the Wall St firms don't have the capital to issue them. OFHEO stopped them in mid-2007. From the OFHEO release:
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hold approximately $370 billion in private-label securities, almost all of which carry the highest investment grade rating. Approximately $170 billion of these securities are backed by subprime mortgages. Since these securities were acquired before the implementation date, they will not be affected by the guidance …"
Furing this period Fannie & Freddie also buy increasingly exotic mortgages and repackage them for resale as mortgage backed securities...securities that are toxic because the are littered with subprimes and alt-a loans.
To understand the scope and impact of this, consider that Fannie Mae's book of business alone is $3 trillion, almost 25% of the entire mortage market.
In 2005-2006, the regulatory legislation returns. This time it passes the House, but Barney Frank still votes against it. He says it has amendments he doesn't like. The Senate cannot muster the 60 votes it needs to reach cloture and the bill is never presented to the floor.
2007, Barney Frank, now the committee chair, since the Democrats now have control reintroduces reform legislation. It dies. In 2008, the key language is reintroduced as part of a larger set of legislation and passes into law on July 30, 2008.
Too late. The financial infrastructure of the US (and the world) is mortally wounded.
Both parties play in this. Fannie & Freddie's avarice plays in this, but Barney Frank plays a very big role, regardless of what he now says or Democratic Cover Media Matters thinks.