Dow
     +0.00
12890.46
+0.00
|
     +0.00
1351.95
+0.00
|
     +0.00
14109.41
+0.00
|
     +0.00
2927.23
+0.00
|
     +0.00
54.30
+0.00
|
     +1.09
116.27
+0.95%
|
     -0.00
2.00
-0.21%
February 11, 2009 2:22 PM

U.S. To Seize Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac

(CBS/AP)  The historic takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which could come as soon as Sunday, moved to the forefront of the presidential campaign Saturday as candidates and congressional leaders seized on the enormous implications for taxpayers and the economy.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together hold or back half of the nation's mortgage debt, and have played an increasingly important role in the real estate market since the credit crisis started in August 2007. A government bailout could cost taxpayers around $25 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and two other regulators are working on a plan to put the troubled mortgage finance companies into a conservatorship, and remove Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd and Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron, according to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

The government is expected to control the two companies at least a year as it evaluates and debates whether Fannie and Freddie should remain government-run entities or be restructured in some fashion, Frank said in an interview.

At a rally in Colorado Springs, Col., Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said, "They've gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help."

Democratic nominee Barack Obama, speaking in Terre Haute, Ind., said, "These entities are so big and they're so tied into the housing market that it is probably true that we have to take steps to make sure they don't just collapse, because the housing market, which is already weakened, would be in even worse shape if we didn't take some steps."

News of the likely government takeover Friday followed a report by the Mortgage Bankers Association that more than 4 million American homeowners with a mortgage, a record 9 percent, were either behind on their payments or in foreclosure at the end of June.

That confirmed what investors saw in Fannie and Freddie's recent financial results: trouble in the mortgage market has shifted to homeowners who had solid credit but took out exotic loans with little or no proof of their income and assets.

For decades, Fannie and Freddie fulfilled the American dream, reports CBS News correspondent Tony Guida. Consumers took out loans from banks, which in turn sell those loans to Fannie or Freddie. Then the mortgage giants repackaged those loans and sold them to investors, guaranteeing the mortgages would be repaid.

As home ownership grew universal, Fannie and Freddie prospered. Their CEOs, Daniel Mudd and Roger Syron together earned around $30 million dollars in 2007, reports Guida.

But as they fat, critics say they got greedy, underwriting too many home loans that never should have been made.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lost a combined $3.1 billion between April and June. Half of their credit losses came from these types of risky loans with ballooning monthly payments.

While both companies said they had enough resources to withstand the losses, many investors believe their financial cushions could wither away as defaults and foreclosures mount.

Frank said the companies' financial picture was better than Wall Street investors assumed, but "it just plainly became clear that elements of the market wouldn't' accept that."

The epic decision highlights the size of the threats facing the housing market and the economy. On Friday, Nevada regulators shut down Silver State Bank, the 11th failure this year of a federally insured bank. And earlier this year, the government orchestrated the takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase.

"Any government action must help to strengthen our economy, which is suffering a crisis brought on by the administration's failure to stop predatory lending," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who chairs the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. "Any intervention also must minimize the cost to American taxpayers, and should not put other financial institutions at risk."

The crisis surrounding Fannie and Freddie promises to be a major challenge for the next president.

The role the two companies play in the U.S. mortgage market has grown dramatically over the past year as other lenders collapsed under the weight of bad subprime loans. The companies guaranteed about three-quarters of all new mortgages in the second quarter of this year, up from under 40 percent in 2006, according to the trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and James Lockhart, the companies' chief regulator, met Friday afternoon with the top executives from the mortgage companies and informed them of the government's plan to put the companies into a conservatorship as early as this weekend.

In July, Congress passed a plan to provide unlimited government loans to Fannie and Freddie and to purchase stock in the companies if needed. Critics say the open-ended nature of the rescue package could expose taxpayers to billions of dollars of potential losses.

Fannie Mae was created by the government in 1938, and was turned into a public company 30 years later. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 to provide competition for Fannie.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 220 Comments
by dashortround September 7, 2008 3:07 PM EDT
"And Obama will? He picked a Washington insider as VP, didn''''t he? Hardly an agent for "change".

Obama will change nothing. It will be business as usual in DC.

Posted by JT_Lancer at 11:42 AM : Sep 07, 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Senator Obama is who we''re electing as our "agent of change", not Senator Biden.

Senator Biden will be serving Senator Obama in an advisory capacity, drawing upon his 30 years of experience in the Senate. And as Obama''s replacement, should anything happen to him during his term.

It''s going to take a LOT of intimate first-hand knowledge of just how things got this way, if you want to begin fixing things, and Senator Biden has been around long enough to know that convoluted history.

The Obama-Biden arrangement sounds very wise to me (as opposed to picking a totally unknown half-term Governor with major issues pending as your key advisor and possible replacement).

Even if you were right that all politicians, of either party are basically the same (and I really don''t believe that) it would STILL be better if the Democarats were given a turn this time around, since allowing one party too much time in power has never been a good thing for the American people in the long run.

Even if one IS as bad as the other, it''s still time for a change of political parties in the White House.

The Dem''s couldn''t possibly do any worse than Bush has done, or than McCain will do.


Reply to this comment
by mcdonaj3 September 7, 2008 2:48 PM EDT
Don''t you ever wonder why Freddie and Fannie would guarantee loans that they had no idea about the credit worthiness of the borrower? Would you loan money to your neighbor without knowing if he/she could pay you back. As they say in the banking industry, collateral does not make a bad loan into a good one. This is not rocket science folks.
Reply to this comment
by jt_lancer September 7, 2008 2:42 PM EDT
DaShortRound - ''McCain won''''t change a thing. He hasn''''t in the past 25 years, and he won''''t in the next four years either.''

And Obama will? He picked a Washington insider as VP, didn''t he? Hardly an agent for ''change''.

Obama will change nothing. It will be business as usual in DC.

Obama''s policies are more of the same tired *** we have been hearing out of Dems AND Repubs for decades - more government intervention into all of our lives will solve every malady. Well, it doesn''t quite work that way.
Reply to this comment
by mcdonaj3 September 7, 2008 2:39 PM EDT
So the bailout will cost the taxpayer $25 billion (+-). Don''t you ever wonder exactly who is getting this money?
Reply to this comment
by dashortround September 7, 2008 2:32 PM EDT

"So, McCain AND Obama favor a taxpayer funded bailout of these two companies - a bailout that is happening under the Bush administration and a Dem majority Congress."

Posted by JT_Lancer at 11:12 AM : Sep 07, 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I hear Republicans use that phrase "Dem majority Congress" or "Democratic controlled Congress" a lot lately.

The truth of the matter is that the Republicans have had majority control of the Congress from 1995 through 2006 - an unbroken span of 11 years.

ONLY during the last two years have the Democrats had "supposed" control of the Congress by a 1-member margin of 51-49.

One of those 51 "Democrats" is actually now-Independent Senator Joe Lieberman, John McCain''s best buddy.

If you don''t count Lieberman as a Democrat (and he obviously shouldn''t be) then it''s been 50-50 for the last two years.

So - 11 years of consecutive Republican Congresses, followed by 2 years of a 50-50 split Congress.

If Congress has been a failure and is to blame for the sorry state this country is in right now, then the blame needs to be laid squarely at the foot of the Republican Party.

For 13 years now the GOP has been leading this country down "the wrong path".

It''s time for a change, and that change will obviously NEVER come from Republicans - they like things just the way they are right now - the way THEY have made it.

McCain won''t change a thing. He hasn''t in the past 25 years, and he won''t in the next four years either.


Reply to this comment
by jt_lancer September 7, 2008 2:31 PM EDT
mcdonaj3 - ''As they say, you get what you pay for. We have the finest congress money can buy!''

Yep, and that will ALWAYS be the case, no matter which party is in office.

As long as the state has so much power over the lives of Americans, corporations AND other special interest groups will lobby the politicians for favorable treatment, at the expense of someone else.
Reply to this comment
by mcdonaj3 September 7, 2008 2:27 PM EDT
JT_Lancer
As they say, "you get what you pay for." We have the finest congress money can buy!
Reply to this comment
by mcdonaj3 September 7, 2008 2:23 PM EDT
jmurrieta1,
Please try to get your facts straight. You will recall that the s & l crisis was precipitated by run-a-way inflation during the Carter Administration. But, sadly, there are plenty of "fat cats" in both parties.
Reply to this comment
by samthetvcat September 7, 2008 2:23 PM EDT
---"If you think they''re really ''working for you'', you are a fool."---
Posted by JT_Lancer

---"Well here we are again and the solution is the government will fix it...please give me a break."---
Posted by mcdonaj3

LOL I''m starting to see that - the worst part is when people pick up on that and then they insult us for it by calling us ''cynical'' . . . BOO!
Reply to this comment
by mcdonaj3 September 7, 2008 2:19 PM EDT
Obviously this country does not know how to regulate and manage real estate loans and institutions. Remember the savings & loan debacle? That cost the taxpayer over $100 billion. What was it caused by: GOVERNMENT de-regulation, many bad laws passed by congress, lack of government supervision over the S & L industry, and many elected officials (including John McCain) who were up to their eye-balls in conflicts of interest. Well here we are again and the solution is the government will fix it...please give me a break.
Reply to this comment
See all 220 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook