In 2005, for the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill, S. 190, was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets. If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
In support of S 190, also known as the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, John McCain said: "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 would have Amended the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Most importantly with regard to the CDS situation, S. 190 set forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting. Adoption of these regulatory provisions would have undoubtably affected the way CDSs were dealt with in "private" enterprises.
The bill would have also amended the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation., and transfered the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation. If this had been in place three years ago, this whole situation might have been averted.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190&tab=summary









Discuss