The Government‐Sponsored Enterprises and the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Affordable Housing Goals

Valentin Bolotnyy
{"title":"The Government‐Sponsored Enterprises and the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Affordable Housing Goals","authors":"Valentin Bolotnyy","doi":"10.1111/1540-6229.12031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The U.S. mortgage crisis that began in 2007 generated questions about the role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), in its causes. Some have claimed that the Affordable Housing Goals (AHGs), introduced by Congress through the GSE Act of 1992, and the resulting purchases of single-family mortgages the GSEs made to meet those goals, drove lending to high-risk borrowers. Using regression discontinuity analysis, I measure the effect of one of the goals, the Underserved Areas Goal (UAG), on the number of whole single-family mortgages purchased by the GSEs in targeted census tracts from 1996 to 2002. Focusing additionally on tracts that became UAG-eligible in 2005-2006, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began to determine eligibility using the 2000 Census, I measure the effect of the UAG on the GSEs' whole single-family mortgage purchases during peak years for the subprime mortgage market. Under the first approach, I estimate that the GSEs purchased 0 to 3 percent more goal-eligible mortgages than they would have without the UAG in place. Under the second approach, I estimate this effect to be 2.5 to 5 percent. The results suggest a small UAG effect and challenge the view that the goals caused the GSEs to supply substantially more credit to high-risk borrowers than they otherwise would have supplied. Although the goals may have spurred the GSEs to purchase more multi-family mortgages and REMICs than they otherwise would have, my analyses suggest that the GSEs' purchases of whole single-family mortgages to satisfy the goals did not drive the subprime lending boom of 2002-2006.","PeriodicalId":448093,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Housing (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SRPN: Housing (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.12031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

The U.S. mortgage crisis that began in 2007 generated questions about the role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), in its causes. Some have claimed that the Affordable Housing Goals (AHGs), introduced by Congress through the GSE Act of 1992, and the resulting purchases of single-family mortgages the GSEs made to meet those goals, drove lending to high-risk borrowers. Using regression discontinuity analysis, I measure the effect of one of the goals, the Underserved Areas Goal (UAG), on the number of whole single-family mortgages purchased by the GSEs in targeted census tracts from 1996 to 2002. Focusing additionally on tracts that became UAG-eligible in 2005-2006, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began to determine eligibility using the 2000 Census, I measure the effect of the UAG on the GSEs' whole single-family mortgage purchases during peak years for the subprime mortgage market. Under the first approach, I estimate that the GSEs purchased 0 to 3 percent more goal-eligible mortgages than they would have without the UAG in place. Under the second approach, I estimate this effect to be 2.5 to 5 percent. The results suggest a small UAG effect and challenge the view that the goals caused the GSEs to supply substantially more credit to high-risk borrowers than they otherwise would have supplied. Although the goals may have spurred the GSEs to purchase more multi-family mortgages and REMICs than they otherwise would have, my analyses suggest that the GSEs' purchases of whole single-family mortgages to satisfy the goals did not drive the subprime lending boom of 2002-2006.
政府资助企业与抵押贷款危机:经济适用房目标的作用
2007年开始的美国抵押贷款危机引发了人们对房利美(Fannie Mae)和房地美(Freddie Mac)这两家政府支持企业(gse)在危机起因中所扮演角色的质疑。一些人声称,1992年国会通过《政府支持企业法案》(GSE Act of 1992)引入的“经济适用住房目标”(Affordable Housing Goals, ahg),以及由此产生的政府支持企业为实现这些目标而购买的单户抵押贷款,推动了向高风险借款人放贷。使用回归不连续分析,我测量了其中一个目标,服务不足地区目标(UAG)对gse在1996年至2002年目标人口普查区购买的整个单户抵押贷款数量的影响。另外,当住房和城市发展部(HUD)开始使用2000年人口普查确定资格时,我将重点放在2005-2006年成为UAG合格的土地上,我测量了UAG对次级抵押贷款市场高峰时期gse整个单户抵押贷款购买的影响。根据第一种方法,我估计gse购买的符合目标的抵押贷款比没有UAG的情况下多0%到3%。在第二种方法下,我估计这种影响为2.5%至5%。结果表明,UAG效应很小,并挑战了这样一种观点,即这些目标导致gse向高风险借款人提供的信贷比它们本来可以提供的要多得多。尽管这些目标可能刺激了gse购买更多的多户抵押贷款和REMICs,但我的分析表明,gse为满足这些目标而购买整个单户抵押贷款并没有推动2002-2006年的次贷热潮。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信