Many members of Congress then blamed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the financial disaster. They said that in their pursuit of profit, the two semi-private corporations took too many risks. In reality, the businesses were attempting to stay competitive in a market that had already become too dangerous.
Who is responsible for the 2008 Great Recession?
The Lenders are the main perpetrators. The mortgage originators and lenders bear the brunt of the blame. That’s because they’re the ones that started the difficulties in the first place. After all, it was the lenders who made loans to persons with bad credit and a high chance of default. 7 This is why it happened.
What corporation was responsible for the financial crisis of 2008?
The Fall of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 Nonetheless, the fall of the legendary Wall Street bank Lehman Brothers in September marked the largest bankruptcy in US history13, and for many, it became a symbol of the global financial crisis’ destruction.
What caused the Great Recession of 2008 to start?
During the late 2000s, the Great Recession was characterized by a dramatic drop in economic activity. It is often regarded as the worst downturn since the Great Depression. The term “Great Recession” refers to both the United States’ recession, which lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, and the worldwide recession that followed in 2009. When the housing market in the United States transitioned from boom to bust, large sums of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and derivatives lost significant value, the economic depression began.
Was the financial crisis caused by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took on more risk than they should have as government-sponsored companies. They failed to protect taxpayers, who were ultimately forced to bear the brunt of the losses. They did not, however, create the housing downturn. They didn’t saturate the market with high-risk loans.
Who was to blame for the global financial meltdown?
Falling US housing values and an increasing number of borrowers unable to service their loans were the drivers for the Great Recession. House prices in the United States peaked in mid-2006, coinciding with a surge in the supply of newly constructed homes in some locations.
Which countries were the hardest damaged by the 2008 recession?
The crisis had an impact on all countries in some form, but some countries were hit more than others. A picture of financial devastation emerges as currency depreciation, stock market declines, and government bond spreads rise. These three indicators, considered combined, convey the impact of the crisis since they show financial weakness. Ukraine, Argentina, and Jamaica are the countries most hit by the crisis, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s International Economics Bulletin. Ireland, Russia, Mexico, Hungary, and the Baltic nations are among the other countries that have been severely affected. China, Japan, Brazil, India, Iran, Peru, and Australia, on the other hand, are “among the least affected.”
What went wrong with the economy in 2008?
When the decade-long expansion in US housing market activity peaked in 2006, the Great Moderation came to an end, and residential development began to decline. Losses on mortgage-related financial assets began to burden global financial markets in 2007, and the US economy entered a recession in December 2007. Several prominent financial firms were in financial difficulties that year, and several financial markets were undergoing substantial upheaval. The Federal Reserve responded by providing liquidity and support through a variety of measures aimed at improving the functioning of financial markets and institutions and, as a result, limiting the damage to the US economy. 1 Nonetheless, the economic downturn deteriorated in the fall of 2008, eventually becoming severe and long enough to be dubbed “the Great Recession.” While the US economy reached bottom in the middle of 2009, the recovery in the years that followed was exceptionally slow in certain ways. In response to the severity of the downturn and the slow pace of recovery that followed, the Federal Reserve provided unprecedented monetary accommodation. Furthermore, the financial crisis prompted a slew of important banking and financial regulation reforms, as well as congressional legislation that had a substantial impact on the Federal Reserve.
Rise and Fall of the Housing Market
Following a long period of expansion in US house building, home prices, and housing loans, the recession and crisis struck. This boom began in the 1990s and accelerated in the mid-2000s, continuing unabated through the 2001 recession. Between 1998 and 2006, average home prices in the United States more than doubled, the largest increase in US history, with even bigger advances in other locations. During this time, home ownership increased from 64 percent in 1994 to 69 percent in 2005, while residential investment increased from around 4.5 percent of US GDP to nearly 6.5 percent. Employment in housing-related sectors contributed for almost 40% of net private sector job creation between 2001 and 2005.
The development of the housing market was accompanied by an increase in household mortgage borrowing in the United States. Household debt in the United States increased from 61 percent of GDP in 1998 to 97 percent in 2006. The rise in home mortgage debt appears to have been fueled by a number of causes. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) maintained a low federal funds rate after the 2001 recession, and some observers believe that by keeping interest rates low for a “long period” and only gradually increasing them after 2004, the Federal Reserve contributed to the expansion of housing market activity (Taylor 2007). Other researchers, on the other hand, believe that such variables can only explain for a small part of the rise in housing activity (Bernanke 2010). Furthermore, historically low interest rates may have been influenced by significant savings accumulations in some developing market economies, which acted to keep interest rates low globally (Bernanke 2005). Others attribute the surge in borrowing to the expansion of the mortgage-backed securities market. Borrowers who were deemed a bad credit risk in the past, maybe due to a poor credit history or an unwillingness to make a big down payment, found it difficult to get mortgages. However, during the early and mid-2000s, lenders offered high-risk, or “subprime,” mortgages, which were bundled into securities. As a result, there was a significant increase in access to housing financing, which helped to drive the ensuing surge in demand that drove up home prices across the country.
Effects on the Financial Sector
The extent to which home prices might eventually fall became a significant question for the pricing of mortgage-related securities after they peaked in early 2007, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index, because large declines in home prices were viewed as likely to lead to an increase in mortgage defaults and higher losses to holders of such securities. Large, nationwide drops in home prices were uncommon in US historical data, but the run-up in home prices was unique in terms of magnitude and extent. Between the first quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2011, property values declined by more than a fifth on average across the country. As financial market participants faced significant uncertainty regarding the frequency of losses on mortgage-related assets, this drop in home values contributed to the financial crisis of 2007-08. Money market investors became concerned of subprime mortgage exposures in August 2007, putting pressure on certain financial markets, particularly the market for asset-backed commercial paper (Covitz, Liang, and Suarez 2009). The investment bank Bear Stearns was bought by JPMorgan Chase with the help of the Federal Reserve in the spring of 2008. Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy in September, and the Federal Reserve aided AIG, a significant insurance and financial services firm, the next day. The Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation were all approached by Citigroup and Bank of America for assistance.
The Federal Reserve’s assistance to specific financial firms was hardly the only instance of central bank credit expansion in reaction to the crisis. The Federal Reserve also launched a slew of new lending programs to help a variety of financial institutions and markets. A credit facility for “primary dealers,” the broker-dealers that act as counterparties to the Fed’s open market operations, as well as lending programs for money market mutual funds and the commercial paper market, were among them. The Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), which was launched in collaboration with the US Department of Treasury, was aimed to relieve credit conditions for families and enterprises by offering credit to US holders of high-quality asset-backed securities.
To avoid an increase in bank reserves that would drive the federal funds rate below its objective as banks attempted to lend out their excess reserves, the Federal Reserve initially funded the expansion of Federal Reserve credit by selling Treasury securities. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, got the right to pay banks interest on their excess reserves in October 2008. This encouraged banks to keep their reserves rather than lending them out, reducing the need for the Federal Reserve to offset its increased lending with asset reductions.2
Effects on the Broader Economy
The housing industry was at the forefront of not only the financial crisis, but also the broader economic downturn. Residential construction jobs peaked in 2006, as did residential investment. The total economy peaked in December 2007, the start of the recession, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The drop in general economic activity was slow at first, but it accelerated in the fall of 2008 when financial market stress reached a peak. The US GDP plummeted by 4.3 percent from peak to trough, making this the greatest recession since World War II. It was also the most time-consuming, spanning eighteen months. From less than 5% to 10%, the jobless rate has more than doubled.
The FOMC cut its federal funds rate objective from 4.5 percent at the end of 2007 to 2 percent at the start of September 2008 in response to worsening economic conditions. The FOMC hastened its interest rate decreases as the financial crisis and economic contraction worsened in the fall of 2008, bringing the rate to its effective floor a target range of 0 to 25 basis points by the end of the year. The Federal Reserve also launched the first of several large-scale asset purchase (LSAP) programs in November 2008, purchasing mortgage-backed assets and longer-term Treasury securities. These purchases were made with the goal of lowering long-term interest rates and improving financial conditions in general, hence boosting economic activity (Bernanke 2012).
Although the recession ended in June 2009, the economy remained poor. Economic growth was relatively mild in the first four years of the recovery, averaging around 2%, and unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, remained at historically high levels. In the face of this sustained weakness, the Federal Reserve kept the federal funds rate goal at an unusually low level and looked for new measures to provide extra monetary accommodation. Additional LSAP programs, often known as quantitative easing, or QE, were among them. In its public pronouncements, the FOMC began conveying its goals for future policy settings more fully, including the situations in which very low interest rates were likely to be appropriate. For example, the committee stated in December 2012 that exceptionally low interest rates would likely remain appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remained above a threshold of 6.5 percent and inflation remained no more than a half percentage point above the committee’s longer-run goal of 2 percent. This “forward guidance” technique was meant to persuade the public that interest rates would remain low at least until specific economic conditions were met, exerting downward pressure on longer-term rates.
Effects on Financial Regulation
When the financial market upheaval calmed, the focus naturally shifted to financial sector changes, including supervision and regulation, in order to avoid such events in the future. To lessen the risk of financial difficulty, a number of solutions have been proposed or implemented. The amount of needed capital for traditional banks has increased significantly, with bigger increases for so-called “systemically essential” institutions (Bank for International Settlements 2011a;2011b). For the first time, liquidity criteria will legally limit the amount of maturity transformation that banks can perform (Bank for International Settlements 2013). As conditions worsen, regular stress testing will help both banks and regulators recognize risks and will require banks to spend earnings to create capital rather than pay dividends (Board of Governors 2011).
New provisions for the treatment of large financial institutions were included in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. The Financial Stability Oversight Council, for example, has the authority to classify unconventional credit intermediaries as “Systemically Important Financial Institutions” (SIFIs), putting them under Federal Reserve supervision. The act also established the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), which authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to wind down specific institutions if their failure would pose a significant risk to the financial system. Another section of the legislation mandates that large financial institutions develop “living wills,” which are detailed plans outlining how the institution could be resolved under US bankruptcy law without endangering the financial system or requiring government assistance.
The financial crisis of 2008 and the accompanying recession, like the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Inflation of the 1970s, are important areas of research for economists and policymakers. While it may be years before the causes and ramifications of these events are fully known, the attempt to unravel them provides a valuable opportunity for the Federal Reserve and other agencies to acquire lessons that can be used to shape future policy.
What is the distinction between Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?
The main distinction between Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is the origin of their mortgages. Fannie Mae purchases mortgages from major commercial banks, and Freddie Mac purchases them from much smaller institutions.
What does Freddie Mac mean?
Freddie Mac, as previously stated, is not a real person, but rather a misspelling of the company’s official name, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or FHLMC. The Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970 established Freddie Mac to develop the secondary mortgage market in the United States.
The Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as Fannie Mae) was the only agency that bought real estate mortgages and house loans from issuers prior to the founding of Freddie Mac (primarily banks and savings and loan associations).
Freddie Mac began as a public company with stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were taken over by the Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2008, during the US housing crisis. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are now completely under the hands of the US government.
How did the Freddie Mac scandal come to light?
The corporation revealed in 2003 that it had inflated its profit by $5 billion for the previous 2-3 years, from 2000 to 2002, and that this was done to match Wall Street’s expectations. The accounting crisis was thought to be caused by a lack of accounting knowledge, internal controls, and smooth managerial operations. The corporation experienced a severe challenge between 2000 and 2003 as interest rates fell from roughly 8% to 5.2 percent. The company’s bond portfolio and derivative contracts, which were brought in to hedge the risk of falling interest rates, both increased in value. Gains in asset values should be classified as current income under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (hereafter referred to as ‘GAAP’), which the corporation failed to do, resulting in a leveling of the effects of declining interest rates. Furthermore, when it came to the bond portfolio, the corporation included it in the historical cost, so only the principal and interest payments were significant. There were no changes or fluctuations in this arrangement, and it was not listed under current earnings.