Tag: freddie mac
Bill Pulte

The Real Scandal? Bill Pulte's Unethical 'Investigations' Of Trump Opponents

Bill Pulte, the head of Federal Housing Financial Authority, the agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has been in the news recently over his allegations that prominent opponents of President Trump had committed mortgage fraud. Most recently Pulte has put Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook in his crosshairs, claiming that she listed two homes as principal residences on mortgage applications.

Trump immediately used this allegation as a basis for trying to fire Cook, even though the Fed is supposed to be an independent agency, outside of the president’s control. Governor Cook sued Trump over his firing effort and the courts will ultimately decide whether this is within his power.

At this point, it is important to remember that Cook has not even been indicted for anything, much less convicted. We only have an allegation from Mr. Pulte.

It is also worth noting the irony of Trump, who was convicted in a civil trial for putting false information on loan forms, trying to fire someone for listing two homes as principal residences. Among the items that Trump put on his loan form was the claim that his 10,000 square foot condo was actually 32,000 square feet. Perhaps President Trump is offended by the pettiness of Cook’s alleged crime.

While the validity of Pulte’s allegations will have to be determined by the courts, the real scandal is Pulte himself. He is supposed to be running the agency that oversees the processing of tens of millions of mortgages by two huge quasi-public agencies. We are not supposed to be paying him to rifle through mortgage documents to find and disclose dirt that Trump can use against his political opponents.

The media really need to be directing some serious questions in Pulte’s direction. First and foremost, how did he happen to discover the mortgage abuses that he alleges were committed by New York Attorney General Letitia James, Senator Adam Schiff, and now Governor Lisa Cook. Were these “discoveries” the result of random inspections done by agency staff?

Furthermore, was he looking through non-public mortgage files to gather this information? Also, why did he make this information public when he uncovered it, instead of going through normal channels? If he had followed established procedures, he would have turned over the information to the agency’s inspector general, who would then turn if over to the Justice Department, if they determined it was appropriate. The first time the public would hear about it was when an indictment was issued.

What reason does Pulte have for not following normal procedures? He really needs to come clean on this.

He should also come clean on his holdings of Pulte Group stock, the huge housing construction company started by his grandfather. It may be the case that conflicts of interest are almost a job requirement in the Trump administration, but many of us still think that government officials should be working for the public, not trying to fatten their pocketbook.

If Pulte helps Trump get his wish and a Trump-controlled Fed lowers interest rates, it would provide a big boost to the Pulte Group’s profits. That hope would give Pulte a strong motivation to try to hasten the day when Trump appointees dominate the Fed’s Open Market Committee that sets interest rates.

Anyhow, there is definitely a big scandal here, but it involves Bill Pulte, not Lisa Cook. The media really need to take notice.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack site.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

To Enrich His Cronies, Trump Will Make Homes Even More Expensive

To Enrich His Cronies, Trump Will Make Homes Even More Expensive

In Washington no bad idea stays dead for long. Therefore it should not be surprising that Donald Trump is planning to move forward with plans to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants that have been in government conservatorship for almost two decades.

As with many of Trump’s moves, it is not clear what problem this is meant to solve. During the time they have been in conservatorship, Fannie and Freddie have been securitizing mortgages at a low cost and have not experienced any substantial management problems.

There is of course one problem that privatizing Fannie and Freddie would solve. It would be yet one more way that the financial industry could run up profits and salaries for top executives at the expense of the rest of us.

The Congressional Budget Office calculated that having private institutions replace Fannie and Freddie in their current form would add roughly 20 basis points, or 0.2 percent, to the cost of securitizing mortgages. With around $1 trillion in mortgages securitized each year, that would come to $2 billion annually. That is not a lot in the context of the federal budget (only 0.03 percent), but it is four times the annual appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that got Trump so upset.

And in the case of privatizing Fannie and Freddie, we would get nothing for it except a less efficient mechanism to securitize mortgages. The idea is similar to the plan to privatize Social Security. Social Security is an extremely efficient public system, but many people in the Trump administration see the opportunity to generate trillions of dollars in fees for the private sector by turning it into a private system.

As with a privatized Social Security system, privatizing Fannie and Freddie would expose the country to needless risk. The basic problem is that it would allow a private corporation to operate with a government guarantee against losses. Such a guarantee would give a private securitizer an enormous incentive to securitize bad mortgages to increase volume and make more profits. That is what happened with the housing bubble and the subsequent collapse and financial crisis in 2008 and 2009.

If a private securitizer is carefully regulated, it can limit the risk of reckless lending. But does anyone really believe that the Trump administration would carefully regulate the financial industry?

The basic story line here is that in order to give his campaign donors in the financial industry even more money, Trump is planning to privatize a perfectly well-functioning public system for securitizing mortgages. Doing so would almost certainly increase the cost of mortgages for homebuyers; the only question is by how much. And it raises the risk for future financial crises and government bailouts.

Making the financial sector less efficient to hand more money to contributors is very much front and center in the Trump administration. It’s the same rationale behind Trump’s decision to promote cryptocurrency—which is making Trump and his friends tens of billions of dollars—as opposed to letting the Federal Reserve Board issue a digital currency, which would save Americans tens of billions of dollars in bank and credit card fees.

Eviscerating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau followed the same pattern. Trump is giving a green light to his finance buddies to find ever more creative ways to rip off businesses and the general public.

It’s in that context that we all should understand Trump’s drive to privatize Fannie and Freddie. How could anyone oppose it?

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book “Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer.” A version of this column originally appeared on his Substack site.

Money Trail is a fiscally sponsored project of the Alternative Newsweekly Foundation, a 501(c)(3) public charity, EIN 30-0100369. Donations are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

Reprinted with permission from The Money Trail.

Home Prices Will Rise When Trump Privatizes Fannie And Freddie Mortgages

Home Prices Will Rise When Trump Privatizes Fannie And Freddie Mortgages

In Washington no bad idea stays dead long. Therefore it should not be surprising that Donald Trump is planning to move forward with plans to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants that have been in government conservatorship for almost two decades.

As with many of the moves undertaken by Trump, it is not clear what problem this is meant to solve. For the period they have been in conservatorship, Fannie and Freddie have been securitizing mortgages at a low cost and have not faced any substantial management problems.

There is of course one problem that privatizing Fannie and Freddie would solve. This is yet one more way that the financial industry can run up some profits and high pay for top executives at the expense of the rest of us.

The Congressional Budget Office calculated that having private institutions, rather than Fannie and Freddie in their current form would add roughly 20 basis points, 0.2 percent to the cost of securitizing mortgages. With around $1 trillion in mortgages being securitized each year, that comes to $2 billion annually. That is not huge in the context of the federal budget (0.03 percent), but it is four times the annual appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that got Trump so upset.

And in the case of privatizing Fannie and Freddie, we literally get nothing for it except a less efficient mechanism for securitizing mortgages. This is similar to the plans for privatizing Social Security. We have an extremely efficient public system, but many people in the Trump administration see the opportunity to make trillions of dollars in fees by turning it into a private system.

As with a privatized Social Security system, we would also be exposing ourselves to needless risk by privatizing Fannie and Freddie. The basic problem is that we would be allowing a private corporation to operate with a government guarantee against losses. This guarantee gives a private securitizer an enormous incentive to securitize bad mortgages in order to increase volume and make more profits. That was the story of the housing bubble and the subsequent collapse and financial crisis in 2008-09.

If a private securitizer is carefully regulated, it can limit the risk of reckless lending. But does anyone believe that the Trump administration is going to have careful regulation of the financial industry?

The basic story here is that in order to give donors in the financial industry still more money, Trump is planning to privatize a perfectly well-functioning public system for securitizing mortgages. This move will almost certainly increase the cost of mortgages for homebuyers, the only question is by how much. And it raises the risk for future financial crises and government bailouts.

Making the financial sector less efficient in order to hand money to contributors is very much front and center in the Trump administration. This is the same story with his decision to promote crypto currency, which is making Trump and his friends tens of billions of dollars; as opposed to letting the Federal Reserve Board issue a digital currency, which would save us tens of billions in bank and credit card fees.

The evisceration of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau follows the same pattern. Trump is giving a green light to his finance buddies to find ever more creative ways to rip off businesses and ordinary people.

That’s how we should understand the drive to privatize Fannie and Freddie. How could anyone oppose it?

Dean Baker is an economist, author, and co-founder of the Center for Economic Policy and Research. His writing has appeared in many major publications, including The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and The Financial Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack Dean Baker.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Report: Kushner Firm Receives $800 Million Federally Backed Real Estate Loan

Report: Kushner Firm Receives $800 Million Federally Backed Real Estate Loan

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Kushner Cos., Bloomberg News is reporting, has received $800 million in federally backed debt to purchase apartments in Virginia and Maryland. Kushner Cos. is a high-end real estate company owned by the family of White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner, who is married to President Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump.

The loan, according to Bloomberg News, was issued by Berkadia, which is co-owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and Jefferies Financial Group — and the deal is backed by the government-owned Freddie Mac. Bloomberg News received its information from someone who was familiar with the transaction but agreed to be interviewed only on condition of anonymity.

Spokespersons for Kushner Cos., Freddie Mac and Berkadia did not respond to Bloomberg’s interview requests.

Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Jared Kushner’s attorney Abbe Lowell, has insisted that the president’s son-in-law is not involved in the management of Kushner Cos. In an e-mail in February, Mirijanian told Bloomberg News, “As part of an ethics agreement he has and has followed, Mr. Kushner has had no role in the Kushner Cos. or its activities since joining the government over two years ago. He is walled off from any business or investment decisions and has no idea or knowledge of these activities.”

Kushner Cos. was founded in 1985 by Jared Kushner’s father Charles Kushner, who gave the operation of the company to his son after being convicted of tax evasion and witness tampering in 2005. Charles Kushner was sentenced to two years in prison but only served 14 months.

In February, Bloomberg News reported that Kushner Cos., in a $1.5 billion deal, was purchasing 6030 apartments from the private equity firm Lone Star Funds.

IMAGE: Trump senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, left, in the Oval Office with Vice President Mike Pence, the president (seated) and former staff secretary Rob Porter on January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst 

 

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World