To its credit, Southern California Public Radio rounds up the blog criticism of a shoddy ProPublica report on Freddie Mac investments that I also critiqued in my KPCC appearance. One argument neither I nor the roundup mentions: selling off the less-risky elements of the mortgage derivatives and keeping the riskier elements for itself, Freddie Mac is (for better or worse) promoting homeownership by absorbing some of the risk of investing in mortgages, thus propping up housing prices by making more money available for lending. Of course, we'd be better off without this distorting intervention in the housing market: the ProPublica report is not wrong for criticizing Freddie Mac, but is criticizing Freddie Mac for the wrong reason. And its call for taxpayer subsidies to homeowners with bad credit would just make things worse.
What media bias? Freddie Mac edition
Related Entries:
- The Past, Present and Future of Fannie and Freddie: Government Intransigence on the Current Lawsuits Could Make It Impossible to Reprivatize the Residential Mortgage Market
- JPMorgan's Unsettling Settlement
- The Boston bombers and our immigration sieve
- We're All Fabulous, Fab
- Chevron-Ecuador and Steven Donziger update
- The Bipartisan Attack on Fannie and Freddie: How the Treasury and Congress are Working Overtime to Strip these Corporate Cupboards Bare
- Again with the myth of the "pro-business" court
- What media bias? National Magazine Award division
- A hidden argument for deregulation
- Mac Donald on stop-and-frisk trial
- Ezra Klein unfair to Scalia
- "Supreme Court case involves medical malpractice awards, Medicaid"
- Annals of meritless cause litigation
- Told you so files: no link between cancer and Ground Zero
- Ledbetter again
![]() |
Rafael Mangual Project Manager, Legal Policy rmangual@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
Communications Manhattan Institute communications@manhattan-institute.org |