paulg_68 posted:
Yukishiro1 posted:
How did they incentivize them?
The main way was by forcing fannie and freddie to buy up pretty much every loan to poor people regardless of whether or not they were good loans. Why should banks care about someone's creditworthiness if they can just take a small up front profit and and immediately dump the loan?
This is not what fannie and freddie did.
Those two played an ever shrinking role in the securitization process through the 2000's. Fannie and Freddie were guaranteeing only 30% of new mortgages at the peak of the bubble (down from historical average of around 50%). Over the same time period private securitizers (Countrywide for example) went from 10% to 40%.
Those private companies had over 5 times the default rate that Fannie/Freddie had. And that number would have been far higher if F/F had not been turned into a hidden bank bailout vehicle in 2007 when it started buying large quantities of high risk mortgages from banks when the first signs of financial disaster started to show up.
This also ignores how the process actually works. Lenders start a mortgage, pool a bunch of mortgages together and sell them to Fannie/Freddie. The risk of repayment should show up in the price of the mortgage pool. When lenders fudge the risk numbers, they are still liable for default after Fannie/Freddie buys the mortgage.
The right has been trying very hard to turn these facts upside down as it really threatens their faith based ideology.
Fannie and Freddie are deeply flawed but the criticism here is wrong.