A review of the first presidential debate shows that housing was mentioned only three times during the event. That probably didn’t sit well with the 10 million borrowers who are still underwater in their mortgages, but experts say that both candidates likely realize that discussing possible plans on fixing the housing market would anger some segment of voters, because any answer that may be forthcoming must come at the cost of someone. Also complicating things for Republicans is that home prices have been rising in the majority of swing states, which makes it harder for them to criticize the current administration. For more on this continue reading the following article from TheStreet.
A discussion on the role of government in housing was conspicuously missing from the first Presidential debate on Wednesday, which means we still don’t have any ideas from Washington on how to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The word housing was mentioned all of three times during the debate, according to the transcript.
President Obama noted that housing had begun to rise. Governor Romney attacked Dodd-Frank and said tougher regulations and the uncertainty around what constitutes a qualified mortgage had hurt housing.
But there was no talk of solutions for the housing mess, despite the fact that more than 10 million homeowners remain underwater. There was zero mention of principal reductions or refinancing.
Maybe rising home prices has made housing less of an election issue. Trulia economist Jed Kolko notes that home prices are rising in six out of the seven swing states on a year-on-year basis, which is positive for President Obama.
Governor Romney might find it tougher now to criticize the Obama administration for failed housing policies.
Claim up to $26,000 per W2 Employee
- Billions of dollars in funding available
- Funds are available to U.S. Businesses NOW
- This is not a loan. These tax credits do not need to be repaid
Or maybe the candidates realize that any policy fix they offer for housing would mean someone — investor or lender or taxpayer — has to lose and that would be politically unpalatable.
But both sides have said they want to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two big enablers of the housing bubble. And this is something that resonates with voters, after a $180 billion bail out of the GSEs.
Yet, in a debate focused on regulation and the role of government, both candidates avoided talking about how they would reduce the role of government intervention in housing.
The role of government in housing has grown bigger since the crisis. More than 90% of mortgages continue to be originated by the agencies.
In fact, "Reducing the role of government" was the first talking point in the Romney-Ryan plan to end the housing crisis.
"The Romney-Ryan Plan will completely end "too-big-to-fail" by reforming the GSEs," the campaign’s white paper which was released recently said. "Rather than just talk about reform, a Romney-Ryan Administration will protect taxpayers from additional risk in the future by reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and provide a long-term, sustainable solution for the future of housing finance reform in our country."
And then the plan avoided any specifics about how they would reform the companies, so it became just another case of talking about reform.
It seems that the only person thinking about the future of the GSEs is Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator and conservator of Fannie and Freddie.
Earlier this year, the FHFA drew up a strategic plan for the next phase of conservatorship that sought to build a new infrastructure for the secondary mortgage market, reduce the enterprises’ dominant presence in the market place and maintain foreclosure prevention activities and credit availability.
On Thursday, the FHFA invited public comment on a proposed framework for a common securitization platform and a model pooling and servicing agreement.
Maybe in another four years.
This article was republished with permission from TheStreet.