Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
So much for the tax cut for the middle class if your a homeowner
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hobbes" data-source="post: 1713604" data-attributes="member: 3371"><p>According to Axel, Fannie and Freddie will likely be required to provide significantly more to Treasury than the 10 basis points minimum the statute requires. Once the FHFA completes its capital analysis, Axel argues that as much as 50 basis points addition to a 4% mortgage interest rate could be imposed, adding roughly $58 a month on a $200,000 mortgage, with the additional revenue again being used to pay off the U.S. debt and away from the coffers of Fannie and Freddie.</p><p></p><p>This diversion, along with large dividend fees and an inability to pay back Treasury for taxpayer costs in installments, make it seemingly impossible for the two firms to emerge from conservatorship or ever appear more healthy.</p><p></p><p>A House Republican staffer said one of the motivations for diverting guarantee fee revenue away from Fannie and Freddie is to starve the two mega-housing firms and keep pressure on lawmakers to dismantle them.</p><p></p><p>He added that there were people in the congressional leadership that want to see that they never come out of conservatorship, and the more that they can be prevented from paying back Treasury, the more likely Congress will legislate them out of existence.</p><p></p><p>The staffer noted that top legislators seeking to dismantle Fannie and Freddie are cutting off revenue streams for the firms because they are worried that they could one day accumulate enough money to buy themselves out of conservatorship. In that scenario, he added, there may be little or no impetus on Capitol Hill to abolish them.</p><p></p><p>Leading the effort on Capitol Hill to dismantle the two firms which were taken over by the government and put into conservatorship in September 2008 are a core group of Republican lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee. The vast majority of lawmakers, Republican and Democratic, are still undecided about how to move forward. Read about Republican bills to overhaul Fannie and Freddie </p><p></p><p>A bill introduced by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, would eliminate all government backing for the two firms and use any guarantee fee hikes for deficit reduction. Hensarling told MarketWatch he has been a long-standing supporter of hiking the guarantee fee to help level the playing field and bring in the private market. Responding to a question about whether he was pleased that fee revenue was being used to pay for tax cuts, he said that he is very concerned about revenue diversion and that you dont always get exactly what you want in negotiations.</p><p></p><p>Going in a completely different direction, another bill, introduced by Rep. John Campbell, a California Republican, and Rep. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, would overhaul the federal mortgage financing system and set up as many as 15 or 20 firms that would buy loans, package and sell them with explicit government guarantees.</p><p></p><p>Bose George, analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, said that further increases in the fees are consistent with long-term policy goals of both political parties to decrease the role of Fannie and Freddie in the mortgage market. However, he added that the Obama administration would be opposed to a significant, quick hike in the fee, because it would undermine efforts by the Federal Reserve to boost the economy and keep interest rates low.</p><p></p><p>Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute, said Republicans agreed to the use of Fannie and Freddie fees because they wanted to push the Obama administration to move faster to hike the guarantee fee and drive the return of the private market. </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/payroll-tax-law-may-starve-reform-fannie-freddie-2012-01-17" target="_blank">http://www.marketwatch.com/story/payroll-tax-law-may-starve-reform-fannie-freddie-2012-01-17</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hobbes, post: 1713604, member: 3371"] According to Axel, Fannie and Freddie will likely be required to provide significantly more to Treasury than the 10 basis points minimum the statute requires. Once the FHFA completes its capital analysis, Axel argues that as much as 50 basis points addition to a 4% mortgage interest rate could be imposed, adding roughly $58 a month on a $200,000 mortgage, with the additional revenue again being used to pay off the U.S. debt and away from the coffers of Fannie and Freddie. This diversion, along with large dividend fees and an inability to pay back Treasury for taxpayer costs in installments, make it seemingly impossible for the two firms to emerge from conservatorship or ever appear more healthy. A House Republican staffer said one of the motivations for diverting guarantee fee revenue away from Fannie and Freddie is to starve the two mega-housing firms and keep pressure on lawmakers to dismantle them. He added that there were people in the congressional leadership that want to see that they never come out of conservatorship, and the more that they can be prevented from paying back Treasury, the more likely Congress will legislate them out of existence. The staffer noted that top legislators seeking to dismantle Fannie and Freddie are cutting off revenue streams for the firms because they are worried that they could one day accumulate enough money to buy themselves out of conservatorship. In that scenario, he added, there may be little or no impetus on Capitol Hill to abolish them. Leading the effort on Capitol Hill to dismantle the two firms which were taken over by the government and put into conservatorship in September 2008 are a core group of Republican lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee. The vast majority of lawmakers, Republican and Democratic, are still undecided about how to move forward. Read about Republican bills to overhaul Fannie and Freddie A bill introduced by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, would eliminate all government backing for the two firms and use any guarantee fee hikes for deficit reduction. Hensarling told MarketWatch he has been a long-standing supporter of hiking the guarantee fee to help level the playing field and bring in the private market. Responding to a question about whether he was pleased that fee revenue was being used to pay for tax cuts, he said that he is very concerned about revenue diversion and that you dont always get exactly what you want in negotiations. Going in a completely different direction, another bill, introduced by Rep. John Campbell, a California Republican, and Rep. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, would overhaul the federal mortgage financing system and set up as many as 15 or 20 firms that would buy loans, package and sell them with explicit government guarantees. Bose George, analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, said that further increases in the fees are consistent with long-term policy goals of both political parties to decrease the role of Fannie and Freddie in the mortgage market. However, he added that the Obama administration would be opposed to a significant, quick hike in the fee, because it would undermine efforts by the Federal Reserve to boost the economy and keep interest rates low. Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute, said Republicans agreed to the use of Fannie and Freddie fees because they wanted to push the Obama administration to move faster to hike the guarantee fee and drive the return of the private market. [url]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/payroll-tax-law-may-starve-reform-fannie-freddie-2012-01-17[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
So much for the tax cut for the middle class if your a homeowner
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom