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.
You would think that the trades that busted MF Global and Long-Term Capital Management would be barred under Volcker. Think again.
FORTUNE -- On Tuesday, regulators approved the long-awaited Volcker Rule. The final rule, which was also unveiled on Tuesday, was widely expected to be stricter than originally proposed. And in some ways it was. Bank CEOs will be required to certify that their firms are not violating the rule, which MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Dec 10, 2013 3:02 PM ET
Government attorneys successfully used a controversial interpretation of an obscure law to gain a victory against BofA. This could have dangerous consequences for the rest of Wall Street.Oct 25, 2013 5:00 AM ET
Banks representing the nation's largest bond investors sued the city of Richmond, which last week took steps to take over underwater mortgages through eminent domain.Nin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Aug 9, 2013 11:54 AM ET
There are plenty of unanswered questions around the potential unwinding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but one thing is certain: It will cost homebuyers more to get a mortgage.
FORTUNE – Efforts to wind down the government's support of America's biggest mortgage companies are gaining traction; the question now is how much more could it cost homebuyers if Congress scales down Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, or ends the companies MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Aug 8, 2013 5:00 AM ET
Fannie Mae converted a huge non-cash profit into a deficit-reducing payment to the Treasury by borrowing the money without having it count as part of the national debt even though taxpayers guarantee it. Too bad we can't all use that stratagem to pay our own bills.
FORTUNE -- Here I am, sitting around in the middle of summer, listening to my air-conditioning system labor and wondering which pot of money to MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Jul 12, 2013 8:37 AM ET
Congress isn't likely to privatize the mortgage finance giants, so some hedge funds are turning to Plan B: suing the government.
For the past couple of years, a group of America's smartest investors have been betting big on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The adventurous crew include John Paulson's Paulson & Co., Bruce Berkowitz of Fairholme Capital, and Richard Perry of Perry Capital. Their strategy is to exploit the remarkable revival of MOREShawn Tully, senior editor-at-large - Jul 8, 2013 1:19 PM ET
No other investor has played the bailout trade as often and as successfully as the Fairholme funds manager. Will he be able to do it again?
FORTUNE --Ever since the government began bailing out banks and others a few years ago, we have had a debate about who should benefit. The economy? Yes, that's the point. Borrowers? Eventually. Taxpayers? Always, except in the case of small banks and automakers, then no. MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jun 13, 2013 6:00 AM ET
Another major source of bank profits is on the rocks.
FORTUNE -- Have you called your mortgage broker in a while? If you haven't, you should. And you'll probably get her on the first ring. Being a mortgage broker has suddenly become a lot lonelier.
The number of people looking to refinance their home loan has plummeted recently. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the number of borrowers filing refinance applications fell MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jun 7, 2013 6:00 AM ET
Lending giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are swooping to the rescue just as the housing market turns the corner.
FORTUNE -- Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae announced this week they were making it easier for struggling borrowers to lower their monthly payments. No longer will borrowers who are at least 90 days delinquent have to prove hardship, as the mortgage giants will waive previous requirements that called for documents detailing their MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Mar 29, 2013 10:51 AM ET
|The medical marijuana ad that never aired, despite contrary media headlines|
|China to fight pollution with drones|
|Boeing reports wing cracks on Dreamliners|
|2 million students missing out on college aid|
|Bitcoin matters. Ignore the media circus.|