FORTUNE -- Ralph Nader and New York Times columnist Gretchen Morgenson are usually reliable advocates for the little guy in the face of the enormous power the investor class wields over the American political process. But when it comes to the Treasury Department's 2012 decision to return all of Fannie and Freddie's earnings to taxpayers rather than issuing a 10% dividend as originally stipulated, these two are lining up behind wealthy investors.
Investors in Fannie and Freddie stocks argue -- and Nader and Morgenson agree -- that Treasury made the change to prevent private investors from profiting from Fannie and Freddie's recovery. Here's Morgenson:
Do the Treasury's actions amount to a backdoor nationalization of the companies? A full-fledged takeover would have required Treasury to put all the companies' obligations -- $4.9 trillion at the time -- on the government's balance sheet. A nonstarter.
Furthermore, nationalization would have required the government to provide compensation to shareholders for what it took. Now the government gets the benefits of the companies' profits while avoiding any compensation payments.
This is a common argument you'll hear from Fannie and Freddie investors: The federal government didn't nationalize Fannie and Freddie, and if it had wanted to, it would have required taking trillions of dollars on the federal balance sheet. This was a "nonstarter," as Morgenson describes, because of the statutory limit the U.S. places on its debt level, otherwise known as a debt ceiling. The legislation, which allowed for the Fannie and Freddie bailout, also raised the debt ceiling by $800 million, not nearly enough to formally assume the north-of-$5-trillion in obligations Fannie and Freddie had on their books.
So, instead, Treasury worked out a scheme where Fannie and Freddie would pay a 10% dividend to investors, and taxpayers would assume just shy of an 80% ownership stake in the companies. According to a lawsuit filed on behalf of Fannie and Freddie shareholders by the hedge fund Perry Capital, Treasury then decided to alter the terms of the bailout when it became aware that both firms would soon be turning a profit because it wanted those funds to help make the budget deficit appear smaller.
Even though Feds didn't formally assume Fannie and Freddie's debt, taxpayers were still assuming significant risk by bailing out these institutions. Here's how the Congressional Research Service described the risks back in 2008:
The takeover of Fannie and Freddie, and specifically the commitment to meet all the firms' obligations to debt holders, exposes the government to a potentially large financial risk. Debt issued or guaranteed by the GSEs totals more than $5 trillion. The ultimate value of the firms' assets is uncertain, and the Treasury -- by stating that it will maintain a positive net worth in each GSE -- has in effect agreed to cover all losses to the GSEs' combined $1.5 trillion portfolios.
In other words, taxpayers were assuming far greater risk than Fannie and Freddie shareholders collectively ever had to. And the debate isn't just about money. If Fannie and Freddie are allowed to recapitalize both in terms of money and political clout, figuring out what to do with these firms will become that much more complicated. As Fannie and Freddie's retained earnings grow, so too will resistance to winding them down and replacing them with a much smarter and safer alternative.
What Treasury did in amending the terms of the bailout was unprecedented. But at the end of the day, taxpayers took on huge risk with the Fannie and Freddie bailout and should be compensated for it. After all, the only thing that prevented a full nationalization was America's archaic debt ceiling rules.
The story of the financial crisis has often been one of justice deferred on account of fine print. Whether it is the lack of criminal convictions for white-collar misconduct, the absence of any meaningful help for underwater homeowners, or the missing concessions from large banks for the billions in bailout money offered to them, taxpayers have gotten the raw end of just about every deal they've signed.
Now that the Treasury Department is trying to execute real justice and make sure that Fannie and Freddie shareholders don't profit from a bailout they didn't deserve, it's strange that advocates like Ralph Nader are trying to stand in the way.
Richmond, California is saving local underwater mortgage holders from the banks. Where was this solution four years ago?
FORTUNE – In the wake of the financial crisis in 2008, it seemed like everyone from Wall Street to America's auto industry got a bailout; the government swooped in to rescue companies from Bank of America (BAC) to General Motors (GM) and American International Group (AIG).
And as home prices collapsed, Uncle Sam tried MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Jul 31, 2013 10:41 AM ET
When a bailout is worse than the illness.
FORTUNE -- You can thank Cyprus and Europe's leaders for making our $700 billion bank bailout look good.
The plan to impose a tax on bank deposits to help pay for the bailout of Cypriot banks was "absurd," says Philip Dybvig, one of the world's leading economic experts on banks and financial crisis. Back in 1983, Dybvig co-authored, along with University of Chicago economist MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Mar 19, 2013 4:17 PM ET
Critics of our analysis say Uncle Sam should have let the free markets take care of business. They tried. And they failed.
FORTUNE -- My last column, looking at five myths and misconceptions that have emerged since the financial crisis first surfaced five years ago, clearly hit a nerve. It elicited more than 500 online comments, an unusually large response. Most commenters were critical of what I wrote, which is par MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Jul 5, 2012 5:00 AM ET
Here's one instance where you should give the Treasury an "F" for effort.
Correction: 5/24 12:57
FORTUNE -- A few weeks ago the Treasury Department put out its latest report of what the government's rescue efforts in the wake of the financial crisis cost taxpayers. The conclusion: Nada. In fact, the Treasury says that if you take a broad view of all the bailout programs, taxpayers actually are looking at a $9 MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - May 21, 2012 1:59 PM ET
Clarification: 3/8 8:40 AM.
The Treasury Department is selling $6 billion worth of its AIG stock at a profit. But it's still not clear taxpayers will come out ahead on the insurer's bailout.
FORTUNE -- The good news: The government is about to get an another $14.5 billion of the money it poured into AIG (AIG) at the height of the financial crisis. The bad news: Uncle Sam is still owed $36 MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Mar 7, 2012 6:19 PM ET
A mass mortgage refi solution is getting support from both sides of the political aisle. And it wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime.
FORTUNE -- Main Street taxpayers have bailed out Wall Street. Now it's time for Wall Street to return the favor by footing the bill to help millions of honorable Main Street borrowers pay lower interest rates on their mortgages, something that should have happened years ago. Wall Street giving MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Jan 18, 2012 5:00 AM ET
Why Greece's bailout may not prevent a Continental credit crisis and another global economic slowdown.
The Greek Parliament approved a tough austerity plan so that the country could get money from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, including the rest of the bailout hammered out last year and a second aid package. Europe's officials have now spent nearly $270 billion to keep Greece going, signaling that they will spend whatever it MOREKatie Benner - Jun 30, 2011 1:21 PM ET
Who is most eager to put the AIG bailout in the rearview mirror?
The government would certainly like to sell off its holdings in the giant insurer sooner rather than later. Witness its decision to sell a big chunk of AIG (AIG) shares this spring even with the stock down sharply from its level at the end of 2010.
But AIG chief Bob Benmosche makes clear in the video below that he MOREColin Barr - Jun 22, 2011 4:21 PM ET
Have Europe's leaders kicked the Greek can as far as it will go?
Unnervingly, it is starting to look like the answer may be yes. Policymakers this week failed yet again to take decisive action on Greece's debt crisis, rattling markets and prompting billionaire George Soros to brand officials' failure to restructure Greek debt a "mistake."
The central problem -- beyond Greece's running out of money again -- is a standoff between bailout-shy politicians and MOREColin Barr - Jun 15, 2011 10:59 AM ET
|4.2 million have signed up for Obamacare as open enrollment nears close.|
|Tesla lashes out at Chris Christie|
|Why casino workers hate Obamacare|
|Five predictions for the World Wide Web that were way, way, way off|
|Netflix faster on Comcast, following deal|