ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Toxic Bitcoiner25d ago
I have to apologize (personally to @MAHDOOD ) for oversimplifying how mortgage backed security (MBS) “ownership” works. In light of the realization that I oversimplified, I decided to do a deep dive and write a research paper on the US mortgage market and how the US government intervenes in it. TLDR: My main point still stands: government intervention in the ~$13.1T US single family mortgage market is extreme and worth taking note of. ~70.61% ($9.3T) of the mortgage market carries a government-linked, credit-risk guarantee, AKA taxpayers. The Federal Reserve also owns roughly ~15% (~$2T) of the market, whose credit risk is backed by taxpayers (and included in the ~70.61% ($9.3T)). I probably won’t post the whole research paper anywhere, but this high level summary below should give some understanding of how the market works. Questions and corrections welcome. After mortgages are originated, there are two types of entities: owners and guarantors. In the approximately ~$13.1 trillion U.S. single family mortgage market, the typical owner of a mortgage-backed security earns the interest payments and bears interest-rate risk, prepayment/extension risk, and liquidity risk — meaning the asset’s value fluctuates as rates move or borrowers refinance. (Private label MBS and unsecuritized whole loans, ~29% of mortgages (~$3.87T), bear those three risks PLUS credit risk. AKA a free market) The guarantor, by contrast, bears the credit risk — the risk that borrowers default and liquidation does not fully repay principal. ~70.61% ($9.3T) of the mortgage market carries a government-linked, credit-risk guarantee: roughly 50% via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (implicit) and about 21% via Ginnie Mae (explicit). The Federal Reserve also owns roughly ~15% ($2T) of the total market. While the Fed holds the interest-rate, prepayment/extension, and liquidity risks on those securities, it does not bear the borrower credit risk. That credit risk is insured by the issuing agencies — either Ginnie Mae (explicit full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury) or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (implicit Treasury backstop through conservatorship). In simple terms, owners absorb market volatility, while the guarantors absorb borrower default losses. 29% remains outside federal credit protection through private-label securities and bank-held whole loans.
💬 7 replies

Replies (7)

MAHDOOD25d ago
This all sounds so fake and gay. It’s so retardedly complicated, seemingly by design, and I’m so grateful that Bitcoin exists. I can’t imagine putting my life’s value in this fucked system.
0000 sats
Toxic Bitcoiner25d ago
Fake and gay indeed. Part of the Conclusion: “This architecture delivers powerful short-term stability. Mortgage rates remain lower than they otherwise would be. Investors treat agency MBS as near-sovereign assets. During downturns, scheduled principal and interest payments continue flowing to investors even when borrowers default, reducing forced selling and systemic panic. But stability is achieved through structural leverage. Mortgage lending creates bank deposits — expanding the money supply at origination. Federal guarantees reduce funding costs and suppress risk premiums, encouraging greater credit expansion than a fully private market would likely sustain. Over time, this contributes to higher home prices, higher household leverage, and greater sensitivity to rate cycles. The system reduces the frequency of collapse while increasing the scale of public exposure. It converts episodic private losses into managed public absorption. That tradeoff may be rational, but it is not neutral. The system does not eliminate risk, it reallocates it through layered public backstops.”
0000 sats
MAHDOOD25d ago
Sounds like we are setting up for a painful event. This also sounds like socialism
0000 sats
Send_it_Mike: F**k this War25d ago
I personally see the MBS market as a small problem to the federal government for a few reasons: 1. Most homeowners are in a rather comfortable equity position meaning the draw down in the market would need to be ~40% or greater for the creditor to not be made whole even in the event of a foreclosure. 2. There would be MUCH bigger problems prior to housing market going down noticably, ie stock market returning to just a historically normal valuation would crash the economy and tax receipts and lead to a debt financing issue (if liquidity is sucked out of the system there's no money to buy the treasuries.) Even if house prices feel inflated they've got nothing on stock valuations: https://www.longtermtrends.com/stocks-to-real-estate-ratio/
0000 sats
Toxic Bitcoiner25d ago
I don’t disagree with any of that. It’s just not what my hypothesis is: that government intervention into the housing market is extreme and unappreciated. People seem to not be aware of this at all. And yea equity valuations are farcical.
0000 sats
Toxic Bitcoiner25d ago
Only 29% of the market is “free”. Then again, those originating banks/credit unions who hold those hold loans have FDIC/NCUA insurance and other government-sponsored cartel benefits.
0000 sats
MAHDOOD25d ago
And it's all influenced by fake money so my guess is that 29% is a generous estimate
0000 sats