If Obama eliminates Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, will mortgage rates go up?

President Obama wants to reduce the government's role in the mortgage giant by phasing out mortgage financing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The idea has broad support, but interest rates on home loans would go up, especially for low-income families.

Matt York/AP
President Barack Obama speaks about housing, Tuesday, Aug. 6, 2013, in Phoenix. Homebuyers could feel the pinch if Congress follows through on proposals to shut down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-run mortgage guarantee giants that were rescued by a $187 billion taxpayer bailout during the financial crisis. Congressional efforts to overhaul the nation’s mortgage finance system got a boost Tuesday from Obama.

Republicans and Democrats don't see eye to eye when it comes to the economy, but in one area, at least, they've reached broad agreement: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants bailed out by the government in the wake of the housing crash, have to go.

President Obama nudged the idea forward this week in a speech in Phoenix, one of the areas hardest hit by foreclosures and depressed housing prices in the aftermath of the real estate bubble.  

Reform should "lay a rock-solid foundation to make sure the kind of crisis we went through never happens again. And one of the key things to make sure it doesn't happen again is to wind down these companies that are not really government, but not really private sector; they're known as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae," Mr. Obama said. “For too long, these companies were allowed to make big profits buying mortgages, knowing that if their bets went bad, taxpayers would be left holding the bag," he said, referring to the firms’ implicit government backing that inculcated them from risk in case loans went sour. "It was ‘heads we win, tails you lose.’ ”

But in pushing to eliminate Fannie and Freddie, reformers face a problem: Whatever they do is likely to raise mortgage interest rates, especially for lower income Americans, which would be politically unpopular. 

“In almost all of these [proposals] because there is no government guarantee, it’s likely that mortgage rates will be higher,” says David Berson, an economist with insurance company Nationwide and former chief economist for Fannie Mae. “That means there will be some creditworthy people who will have to pay more, or may not get a mortgage a all. That makes it harder for lower income buyers.”

Further privatizing and reducing the role of Fannie and Freddie has been a popular DC notion for the past few years, so the reaction to Obama’s speech was largely positive. “I was trying to get rid of them in 2004 and 2005, so I see this as a sign of progress,” says Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington. “Now we recognize their tremendous failures. The consensus is that these institutions should go away.”

But there is much debate over how to go about the transition. In June, Sens. Bob Corker (R) of Tennessee and Mark Warner (D) of Virginia introduced a bill aimed at shifting the lending risk to private capital and set up a new government agency, the Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation. The FMIC would regulate mortgages and insure banks against catastrophic losses, but private lenders would assume the first 10 percent of losses on individual mortgages. The bill also assesses a fee on every mortgage, which would fund affordable rental housing and home loans for low-income and minority families.

Meanwhile, a Republican plan passed by the House Financial Services Committee last month would shut down the mortgage backing giants without replacing them with a government entity.

In his Phoenix speech, Obama said that any measures he signed into law should “preserve access to safe and simple mortgage products like the 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage.” But Mr. Berson and other experts worry that without government backing, that could prove difficult. “It’s hard to asses the risk of a long life bond,” he says. “Banks don’t want them. Mortgage lenders would ask for a large fee upfront or very large rates to offset that risk. “

Mr. Calabria counters that the 30-year fixed rate will still be available in the private market: “What Fannie and Freddie provide is a credit guarantee. Getting rid of them will not get rid of the 30-year fixed rate. You can get one on the jumbo market. The interest rate risk must be borne by somebody. It will still be available in the US. To me, there’s very little evidence that suggest otherwise.”

He adds that there is still federal involvement in housing through a number of agencies, including the Federal Housing Authority, and any market shift would be gradual. Plus, he adds, after a period of record low interest rates and an economy in the dumps, “inflation itself is creeping up. We are entering a higher interest rate environment anyhow, better to take that hit now than later. We need to do this now, before housing is the only thing carrying the economy."

Still, Berson maintains that an interest rate spike, especially with a still fragile economy, could be a bitter pill for homeowners and potential homeowners.  The more you’d like the mortgages to look like they do today, the less the system can change,” he says. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.