The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (4 comments)

  1. Laura Burke

    “Other AEI scholars, such as Peter Wallison and Alex Pollock, go a step further. In their view, GSEs must be unwound entirely to protect taxpayers. It’s not a question of adding some private capital to the mortgage market. It’s a question of having a mortgage market that functions entirely on private capital without a government guarantee. This is the only way to eliminate moral hazard that ultimately will lead to another crash.”


  2. “It would be useful for reform to allow for a diversity of sources of funding for housing, and for private capital to come in a number of forms and through a variety of mechanisms. This will help make the future housing finance system more resilient to economic and market events that affect particular parts of financial markets and thus impinge on the availability of funds for housing.”

    what’s stopping private capital now?

    1. Just how much private capital would have come forward to fund mortgage loans in late ’08 through late ’11?

      Answer, probably none as residential real estate prices were declining during that time. It would not have been rational for a private investor to make a mortgage loan when the collateral is declining in value right in front of him.

      F & F served a proper role as a lender of last resort for the RE industry during that time. Without them house prices would still be declining and the recession even deeper.

      Yes, I understand that AEI and other deflationists think that would be a good idea.

  3. When was the last time the public bought a stock on the market that as guaranteed to make money? I think everyone would buy! But yet we let our banks be controlled by FF. where is the security in that. Besides, hat ver happened to the monoply law?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content