Home > Mortgages > Fannie, Freddie, the Feds & Freud… FUBAR

Comments 0 Comments
Advertiser Disclosure


As a citizen, a voter, and a consumer, what do you think this country needs? Less partisanship in Congress? Less Congress? Easier credit? Lower taxes? Higher taxes?

There are about 307 million Americans and given the state of the American economy, perhaps there are as many answers to that question.

Here’s my take: We need a good shrink. I’m talking real, Freudian-style analysis, because we don’t seem to be paying attention to what we’re doing, both individually, with regard to how we vote, and institutionally, with regard to policy. Last week, we took a look at the former, this week, we focus on the latter.

When I was growing up, I was taught that the purpose of government was to “promote the general welfare,” and to provide “liberty and justice for all.” I guess it depends upon your definition of the word “all.”

The “all” keeps getting smaller.

These days it seems that government functions largely as the protector of the rich, or perhaps as the not-necessarily-unbiased referee in a wrestling match between those who got and those who have not.

For example, last week, finally, the SEC sued six guys—three executives from Fannie Mae and three from Freddie Mac alleging securities fraud. Now don’t get too excited. The fraud that’s being alleged has nothing to do with defrauding you or any other homeowner. Instead the SEC alleges that Fannie and Freddie defrauded large institutional investors, who bought portfolios of their securitized mortgages, by vastly understating the risk associated with subprime loans, and by mischaracterizing many such loans with words other than “subprime.”

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division. “These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions’ exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk on the company’s books. All individuals, regardless of their rank or position, will be held accountable for perpetuating half-truths or misrepresentations about matters materially important to the interest of our country’s investors.

See—it’s the investors who got hurt, not you.

The securities laws of the United States, administered by the SEC, involve thousands of often abstruse rules and regulations, but they all boil down to one simple idea: you gotta tell the truth. Theoretically, one could sell to the public the securities of a company intending to mine the green cheese of the moon so long as the prospectus describing those securities accurately represented the risks associated with the proposed endeavor. The SEC complaints against Fannie and Freddie really charge just one thing—that in selling those now-infamous mortgage-backed securities, the defendant executives didn’t tell the truth. The complaints don’t allege that there was any actual fraud—no one stole any money and no one was manipulating prices or markets—it’s just that all those investors in Asia, Europe and Wall Street were misled. The only allegation of real breaking bad was the almost parenthetical mention of the fact that the six employees in question received incentive compensation—and a lot of it—based, in part, on the profits from securitizations of subprime loans.

I’m not arguing that the SEC should not have brought this case or that there is no one in Washington trying to protect the interests of the 99%. Rather, I’m saying is that the existing tools of government machinery make it difficult for anyone to actually be protected unless they have money—and lots of it.

Millions of dollars will be spent defending the suit. This is yet another example of how the government is working to stimulate the economy. (I have long held the belief that—contrary to the opinions espoused John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and the Party of Tea—government agencies, whatever they may cost, actually do create far greater benefit to the economy in terms of private sector jobs and economic activity). Just think about how many lawyers, accountants and other professionals make serious bank by sidestepping government rules or defending against their enforcement. I have no idea what the numbers are, but I’ll bet you $10,000 (thanks Mitt!) literally millions of people owe their livelihood to the idiocy and complexity of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

When you step back and take a look at it all, the forest can look very different from the trees. I think that the SEC suit against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives represents a kind of stress release, in a very different form than, say, Occupy Wall Street. Americans are seething over the fact that despite the near collapse of the entire financial system, the guys who ran the game and profited immensely from it, and continue to profit immensely from it, remain largely unscathed by its results.

The government that oversaw the morass and certainly had at least some hand in creating it still can’t manage to appoint a director of the CFPB, or even extend a payroll tax holiday that means an awful lot to a whole lot of people, especially at this time of year. No doubt, the fine folks in Washington are trying to do something, and that something is typified by the complaint against Fannie and Freddie—full of sound and fury and good intentions, but signifying very little.

The very sad truth is that in addition to all of the other schisms about which you can read daily—income inequality, extremists controlling Congress, etc. etc.—the largest gap exists between what government does and what government should do. The people who argue that there is too much regulation are right, principally because so much of it is ill-conceived and counterproductive. The people that argue that there is too little regulation are also right, principally because most government action, both good and bad, ignores the 99%. Only one thing is certain: good people both in and out of government are trying to do something, by calling out snake oil salesmen on the Hill, or by occupying parks around the country. Those expressions of frustration will keep building until something happens—but I’m not sure what or when.

No wonder so many people feel that America has lost its way. Perhaps couches should be installed in voting booths

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team