Institutional investors have bought up 20% of mobile home parks and jacked up the rents on the low income residents, devouring widows' houses

 The plight of residents at Ridgeview is playing out nationwide as institutional investors, led by private equity firms and real estate investment trusts and sometimes funded by pension funds, swoop in to buy mobile home parks. Critics contend mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are fueling the problem by backing a growing number of investor loans. ...

Driven by some of the strongest returns in real estate, investors have shaken up a once-sleepy sector that’s home to more than 22 million mostly low-income Americans in 43,000 communities. Many aggressively promote the parks as ensuring a steady return — by repeatedly raising rent. ...

George McCarthy, president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, said about a fifth of mobile home parks, or around 800,000, have been purchased in the past eight years by institutional investors.

He was among those singling out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for guaranteeing the loans as part of a what the lending giants bill as expanding affordable housing. Since 2014, the Lincoln Institute estimates Freddie Mac alone provided $9.6 billion in financing for the purchase of more than 950 communities across 44 states. ...

Soon after investors started buying up parks in 2015, the complaints of double-digit rent increases followed.

More.

In correcting the fallible bureaucrats Kyle Smith also gets the homeownership rate wrong: It's as low as in 1965

Here:

And 80 percent of [bureaucrats] guessed that the rate of home ownership is lower than it is: 67 percent. With all of this underestimating going on, it’s not surprising that Washington is constantly pushing urgent, potentially disastrous fixes (such as re-inflating the housing bubble by encouraging more and more Americans with sketchy credit ratings to buy homes) for imaginary ills. Renting your home is a perfectly acceptable way to live, and Fannie Mae shouldn’t be in the business of enticing renters of modest income to commit to large amounts of debt by obtaining mortgages.

Gretchen Morgenson smells a rat: Fannie/Freddie bailout cost us nearly $188 billion, but Treasury rakes in the profits

Gretchen Morgenson for The New York Times, here:

For decades, the companies had maintained that their mortgage operations posed no risk to taxpayers; their pals in Congress echoed this refrain. But then came the mortgage debacle, and taxpayers had to shore up the companies with $187.5 billion. Initially, Fannie and Freddie had to pay interest on the loan. But in August 2012, the Treasury and F.H.F.A. abruptly changed the agreement; under the so-called third amendment, the government began sweeping all the companies’ profits into the Treasury. Since then, Fannie and Freddie have been immensely profitable. As of last December, the Treasury had received a total of $225.4 billion from the companies. ... 

The initial $187.5 billion loan remains outstanding, however, because of the deal’s structure. ...

But recall what was going on in mid-2012. The presidential election was in full swing, and Democrats and Republicans were clashing over the debt ceiling. That May, in a shock to many, Fannie and Freddie reported profits from their operations for the first time since the mortgage crisis. The amount: $4.5 billion. And plenty more was to come. Certainly, giving the Treasury access to billions of dollars in the companies’ profits during this time provided financial flexibility to the executive branch that Congress might not otherwise have approved.

"Ben Bernanke Has An Almost Unbroken Record Of Being Wrong"

Bye Bye Ben.

Seen here:

Ben Bernanke has an almost unbroken record of being wrong.

In 2006, at the zenith of the housing bubble, he told Congress that house prices would continue to rise. In 2007, he testified that failing subprime mortgages would not threaten the economy.

In January 2008, at a luncheon, he told his audience there was no recession on the horizon. As late as July 2008, he insisted that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, already teetering on the verge of collapse, were “ adequately capitalized [and] in no danger of failing.”

Following the Crash of 2008, Bernanke’s prognostications did not much improve. Nor did Yellen’s, who had also misjudged the housing bubble, and who became Fed vice chairman in 2010.

The two of them got the “recovery” they predicted, but the weakest “recovery” in history.

Amity Shlaes Thinks The Mortgage Interest Deduction Is The Only One Distorting Markets

Amity Shlaes is in full-throated opposition to the mortgage interest deduction, here:

The distortion of the housing market, we now know, stemmed not only from the tax deduction but also from the subsidies of government-sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (FMCC) and from inappropriately loose monetary policy promulgated by the Federal Reserve. ...

Opponents of deduction abolition today argue that abolition will make the market crash some more, as per Thomas of the Realtors. One could argue this the other way. Now Americans see houses for what they really are: boxes that depreciate. This is therefore the least expensive time to abolish the deduction. We have already taken the hit -- and 2012 is also the time when we most need the $100 billion or so from the elimination.

No mention here of the cost of, say, the reduced rates of taxation on capital gains and dividends, which came to $91 billion last year. Nor of the costs of any of the other tax loss expenditures which benefit everyone.

She's worried about the distorting effects of the deduction on house prices, but fails to address the distorting effects on stock prices of the lower capital gains tax rate. All tax loss expenditures have distorting effects, not just the one for housing. 

Worse to me is her objectification of the home as a depreciating box. The fact is housing was long stable in America, until Republicans in league with Bill Clinton started fiddling with it and the tax law surrounding it in 1996. What they did was turn the home into a commodity, which abnormally shot up in value and now has shot down.

The question going forward isn't whether to gut the home some more by removing the tax deduction. Even with it home values have declined dramatically today, and could go even lower despite it as they have in the past. And they probably should and probably will decline without any change to the tax deductibility of mortgage interest. If you aren't old enough to have experienced the housing crash of 1980, you aren't old enough to really understand how relatively small changes in housing values compared to now felt a lot bigger from time to time.

When you attack housing you don't just hurt people where they live in the economic sense, but you hurt them also spiritually. The home in America has been much more than a mere store of economic value, a treasury which greedy government enticed Americans to unleash in a torrent from 1997. The home is the incubator of the next generation of Americans, the place where we engage in the most important work we do as a people: replacing ourselves.

The question is what are we going to do about all the distorting effects of government tax policy, not just the distorting effects of one of them.

That Amity Shlaes leaves them all out except as they impact homeowners suggests not just an economic hostility to housing, but a cultural one, part of a broader hostility which has resulted in family dissolution, not family formation.

If the profane bottom line is tax revenue, the way to achieve it is through more taxpayers. You know the kind: the ones who get up everyday, get to work on time, and work hard.

And the most reliable way we have found to produce them is in families, families which overwhelming still prefer to live in houses.

Subsidizing this enterprise comes with a cost.

So does not subsidizing it.

Right On Schedule, Obama's Pals In FIRE Start To Snap Up Your American Dream

Having unleashed all that pent up capital in the American dream of home equity, skimmed it, and tag-teamed it, leaving you underwater and broke, Obama's pals in the financial, insurance and real estate sectors from Wall Street are starting to swoop in and gobble up your broken dreams.

Stephen Gandel reports for Fortune, here:

In the past six months or so, a number of investment firms, hedge funds, private equity partnerships and real estate investors have turned into voracious buyers of single-family homes. And not just any homes, but foreclosures. Investment banks, who also want in on the action, are lining up financing options to keep the purchases going.

Take for instance private equity mega-firm Blackstone Group (BX). ... Blackstone now owns 2,000 single-family homes. At $300 million, that might be small compared to Blackstone's overall real estate portfolio of about $50 billion. But it's one of the biggest piles of homes ever intentionally put together (banks and Fannie and Freddie are sitting on many more foreclosed homes, but that's a different story) by an institutional investor, and it's likely not the largest portfolio out there these days. ...

[L]andlords have always tended to be mom-and-pop outfits often not owning more than a few dozen units confined to one area. Large Real Estate Investment Trusts and private equity funds generally focused on apartment buildings and commercial real estate, like malls and office buildings. That appears to be changing.

Robert Fitch tried to tell everyone that this is what was coming under Obama, because it's what Obama helped make happen on the near south side of Chicago's Loop as a state senator. Obama helped throw out all the poor black people there, nearly 50,000 of them, so his friends could buy up the land, develop it, and make lots of money off it. They ended up helping finance him to the US Senate and The White House.

Looks like they might be at it again.

I first read about it here.

About 42 Percent Of Today's $10.2 Trillion Mortgage Market Is Still Private Label

That's the story from Diana Olick at CNBC.com, here:

Government-backed mortgages (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae) accounted for 58 percent of the $10.179 trillion U.S. mortgage market as of the end of March, 2012, according to data compiled by Inside Mortgage Finance. 

Private-label mortgage-backed securities (MBS) investors held 10 percent and banks/other financial institutions held 32 percent.  It’s that non-government, 42 percent of the market that is having the most trouble refinancing due to poor credit scores and negative equity. Lenders and investors are particularly risk-averse these days.

European Project Has Been Hijacked To Prop Up Insolvent Banks

So says an angry Irishman, Declan Ganley, who is none too happy that despite being in an economic depression, Ireland continues to bailout failed banking institutions elsewhere, here:

“[On Tuesday] Ireland paid, once more, another half a billion euros to unsecured, un-guaranteed failed private bank holders — we don’t know who they are,  some of them are French banks, some of them German — it’s not even disclosed [to whom] Irish tax payers money is going.  So Irish taxpayers are bailing out failed banks."

“The whole of the European project, it would appear, has been hijacked to subsidize and protect an industry that needs to go through its insolvency purge [and] needs to go through bankruptcy."

Well . . . yeah!

His faith in American-style banking bankruptcy arrangements for Europe, expressed elsewhere at the link, is touching, but we don't really practice them here either, sorry to say, in the cases that really matter. American taxpayers remain on the hook for failed behemoths like Citigroup and Bank of America, and Fannie and Freddie, GM, AIG, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Some French readers will be amused by these additional remarks:

“You cannot take the path that Hollande is taking in France of dropping retirement ages and putting in exploitative, extractive taxation and creating a hostile environment for business [because then] there will be no growth in Europe and the whole European project will fall apart.”

The Opposite of Transparency: Obama Regime Claims GSEs Exempt from FOIA

From an editorial on the subject here:

Judicial Watch sought those documents because the FHFA claimed in a separate lawsuit against the 17 firms that losses on securities were caused by material misrepresentations the firms made to Fannie and Freddie. Finance industry experts claim Fannie and Freddie officials were more than sufficiently knowledgeable about the mortgage industry to realize the risks involved in such securities. By putting all Fannie and Freddie documents about such transactions beyond the reach of FOIA requesters like Judicial Watch, the Obama administration is making it difficult, if not impossible, for independent evaluators to determine who bears responsibilities for the losses [$150 billion and climbing] now being covered by taxpayers.

Big Banks Got Rock Bottom Cheap Loans of $1.2 Trillion on Worst Day in Dec. 2008, and Limbaugh Denies They Were Bailed Out

TARP was meant as a diversion from the real action going on behind the scenes, and the diversion is still working on the dunderheads like Rush Limbaugh.

He continues to be fixated on TARP, but ignorantly so. TARP was at least 10 times smaller than the real bailout which put taxpayers at risk.

Just today we have learned that the biggest banks made $13 billion in profits from the Federal Reserve's emergency loans, profits which small, well-run banks all over America did not get to enjoy. In fact, contrary to Limbaugh, the well-run banks got the shaft, having to pay advance premiums for FDIC insurance to cover all the failures, which last time I checked have cost $80 billion, mostly on the backs of the customers of the banks, you and me, who will end up paying the bill as banks pass their cost of doing business on to us. Part of that cost of doing business has been subsidizing the bad behavior of the top five or six 800 lb. gorillas like Citi, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

Our fascist government picked winners and losers both through TARP and the Fed's emergency lending programs. We do not have a free market in banking. And Rush Limbaugh aims to keep it that way.

What is more, TARP recipients continue to be delinquent in paying dividends under the TARP program, as reported here in The Chicago Tribune in October:

[M]ore than 170 U.S. banks ... have missed approximately $275 million in TARP dividend payments to the government through August.

It is a myth that TARP has been "successful" in the sense that everything has been "repaid". It has not. TARP funds alone still not repaid come to $93 billion as of right now. Add in $183 billion more for Fannie and Freddie.

I nominate these as Rush Limbaugh's most ignorant comments to date:

European banks are teetering on the edge. The Italians went out and they sold bonds and they can't pay them now as they're maturing. The euro might collapse. It is real trouble. And, meanwhile, US banks did not get bailed out. Not the big banks, not the Wall Street banks. They did not get bailed out. 

We have so many lies and myths being told that people believe. Most of the big banks were forced to take TARP money so as to avoid there being a stigma. The banks that needed TARP money were the local mom and pop banks all over the country that were in trouble. The big banks, Wells Fargo, these guys were forced to sign a paper agreeing to take X numbers of millions of dollars, billions, maybe, I forget the number, but whatever it was, just to make it look like everybody was in the same boat. But the big banks paid it all back. These Occupy people are protesting something that never happened. The big banks did not get bailed out. Taxpayers made a profit on the money they were forced to borrow. Other banks did get bailed out, the little mom and pops, but the big ones did not. 

Europe is teetering, Italy, Spain, you name it, and what do we get on the Sunday shows?

It is the ignorance of the Tea Party about state-sponsored banking and the bailouts which has allowed Occupy Wall Street to occupy the vacuum the Tea Party has left about this most important of unresolved attacks on American capitalism. Unfortunately the attack on American style capitalism is now a two-front attack. On the left are the socialists of the Democrat Party who want effectively to nationalize the banking system and outlaw risk. On the right we have the liberal consensus from the era of Franklin Roosevelt which is an ad hoc echo of European fascism which pretends that banking is free enterprise while making the taxpayer responsible for its many and frequent excesses.

Too bad for America that the demagogues of both the right and the left keep you from hearing the truth.   

New Losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Boost Bailout Total by Taxpayers to $169 Billion

With no end in sight.

Story here at Reuters.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Have Now Cost the Taxpayers $141 Billion

The latest cost figures are reported in The Wall Street Journal, here.

Bailed Out GSEs Send 87 To Mortgage Bankers Association Annual Convention, Spend At Least $227,000 Of Your Tax Money For Fling In Chitown!

The New York Times has all the gory details here.

Rush Limbaugh Says The Banks Were Victims, The Bailouts A Success!

And the Tea Party got all hot and bothered over what, exactly?

Santelli's rant against the $75 billion mortgage bailout program called HAMP on CNBC? Noboby heard it!

The interventions bailing out private corporations like GM, Chrysler, and AIG, etc? Why, totally meaningless! Didn't happen!

This gag never appeared anywhere:

Nearly 400 failed banks haven't failed.

The FDIC hasn't had to pay $80 billion because of it.

1000 more with $400 billion in assets aren't really in danger.

Taxpayers aren't on the hook for $160 billion and rising for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

$10 trillion in taxpayer funds weren't really lent to every Tom, Dick and Hairy Bastard in the world at rock-bottom rates by the Federal Reserve!

The New York Times is simply mistaken that TARP will end up costing the taxpayers $37 billion. The CBO estimate of $25 billion is also quite simply wrong.

Partial transcript here:

RUSH: Will in Amanda, Ohio. You're up first. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hey thanks, Rush. Hey, don't you think the one common denominator between the Tea Party and the protesters on Wall Street is a lack of justice? And what I mean by that is the lack of criminal prosecution from anybody from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Wall Street, the banking industry, or even our own government officials.

RUSH: Um, okay --

CALLER: Not one prosecution, Rush.

RUSH: You want prosecution? Oh, "not one." I'm trying to understand. What's the correlation to the Tea Party?

CALLER: Well, the Tea Party gathered great strength after the bailouts that they tried to stop, and I think without the prosecution of anybody for crimes that have brought this country to its knees --

RUSH: Okay, name for me a crime and who you think should be prosecuted. I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know. Obama was asked this question today.

CALLER: Rush.

RUSH: Somebody asked him today, "How come there haven't been any prosecutions?" Who? And for what?

CALLER: I have to untie the other half of your brain for this one. Think about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

RUSH: Okay, when I think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac I think Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: But look at the collusion that's taken place between Wall Street and the banking industry and selling the mortgages -- or giving mortgages to anybody -- 'cause we know we can sell 'em off over here and we don't care if they're qualified or not.

RUSH: All right.

CALLER: Do you think there was a lack of fiduciary responsibility from a lot of people?

RUSH: No! I think there was fear of government.

CALLER: The what?

RUSH: I think there was fear of government. You talk about all these mortgage-related projects. Why did they exist?

CALLER: That doesn't justify crime.

RUSH: I'm not saying it does. No, no, no, no. Wait a minute. (sigh) I'm not trying to justify crime, but when you have the... I don't know. ...

Now, it's risky saying this because I sound like I'm coming to the defense of bankers. ...

They were forced to accept the bailout. The banks have paid back their bailouts with interest. The government has made a profit from the bailouts.

'We had to save the banks in order to sue them'

Jonathan Weil gets off a good one here, concluding how ridiculous was bailing out the banks in the first place:

The government has so many conflicting agendas, we may never get satisfactory answers to those questions. All of this is part of the legacy of the unprecedented federal interventions in 2008, as well as a reminder of what a colossal mistake it was in the first place to create Fannie and Freddie with all their privatized profits and socialized losses.

The proper role of government in a free-enterprise system is to police market participants at arm’s length, not join their ranks and choose winners and losers. That’s a line we crossed a long time ago, though. The great outrage isn’t that a federal agency is suing some of these too-big-to-fail banks for damages. It’s that we ever bailed them out at all.

None dare call it fascism, though, not even Jonathan Weil.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, Clinton Retread, Pushes For Bank Immunity Deal

Robert Scheer for The Nation:

It is a sellout deal that, in return for a pittance of compensation by banks to ripped-off mortgage holders, would grant the banks blanket immunity from any prosecution. That is intended to short-circuit investigations by a score of aggressive state officials, inquiries that offer the public a last best hope to get to the bottom of the housing scandal that has cost U.S. homeowners $6.6 trillion in home equity in the past five years and left 14.6 million Americans owing more than their homes are worth. ...

Donovan has good reason not to want an exploration of the origins of the housing meltdown: He has been a big-time player in the housing racket for decades. Back in the Clinton administration, when government-supported housing became a fig leaf for bundling suspect mortgages into what turned out to be toxic securities, Donovan was a deputy assistant secretary at HUD and acting Federal Housing Administration commissioner. He was up to his eyeballs in this business when the Clinton administration pushed through legislation banning any regulation of the market in derivatives based on home mortgages.

Armed with his insider connections, Donovan then went to work for the Prudential conglomerate (no surprise there), working deals with the same government housing agencies that he had helped run. As The New York Times reported in 2008 after President Barack Obama picked him to be secretary of HUD, “Mr. Donovan was a managing director at Prudential Mortgage Capital Co., in charge of its portfolio of investments in affordable housing loans, including Fannie Mae and the Federal Housing Administration debt.”

Read the whole thing here.

Fannie Mae Follows First Quarter $8.7 Billion Loss With $5.2 Billion in Second

Bailouts to date: $104 billion.

Story here.

Liberals Blame Bill Clinton for Housing Bubble

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, under Phil Angelides who had a testy, partisan, op-ed in The Washington Post yesterday, in its report sought to blame Wall Street for leading the way to the housing bubble, not government policy as mediated through the likes of Fannie Mae.

Gretchen Morgenson of The New York Times has begged to differ, and Steven Malanga provides a timely and sympathetic review of a new book she co-authored which uncovers a major impetus to the housing bubble in the administration of none other than Bill Clinton, who took a weaker form of liberalism under George Herbert Walker Bush and ran with it:

Reckless Endangerment locates the origins of the crisis in the ironically named Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which was supposed to protect taxpayers from big losses by Fannie and Freddie. That law pushed the institutions into affordable housing lending and prompted Fannie in particular to adopt a strategy to disarm critics by continually arguing that efforts to rein in the company's operations, such as requiring it to back its mortgage purchases with more capital, would only hurt the goal of expanding home ownership. "You should rejoice in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rather than fight them," Fannie's chief executive, James Johnson, told the New York Times.

In the wake of the 1992 legislation, Fannie Mae created the Housing Impact Advisory Council, an assembly consisting of low-income housing advocacy groups and mortgage lenders. Fannie Mae also began supplying grants to the housing groups, like ACORN, which a few years earlier had criticized the GSEs in the press as "strictly by-the-book" interpreters of underwriting standards whose young underwriters, "are not sensitized to the existence of redlining, be it racial or geographic." Now Fannie was singing a different, more cooperative tune, and its new council, Morgenson and Rosner write, evolved into "the centerpiece" of President Clinton's 1994 National Partners in Homeownership program, a "disastrous homeownership policy" that played a crucial role in inflating the housing bubble.

With The Nation pinning financial deregulation on Bill Clinton in recent days, liberalism's not having a good start to the summer.

If Bill Clinton were smart, he'd respond to all this by blaming Bush, or hope people still have enough money left to go to the beach and read trashy novels instead.

Guarantees Implicit Under Dodd-Frank Hand Big Banks Billions in Borrowing Advantages at Taxpayer Expense

So says John Carney here, calling Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, among others, our new Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs.

Congressional Budget Office Puts Fannie/Freddie Bailout at $317 Billion

The regime's Office of Management and Budget says it's $130 billion, net of certain repayments, apparently, totaling $34 billion.

Story here.