> Central Banks give banks cash in return for garbage mortgages
There are zero mortgages on the Fed’s balance sheet. There has never been a mortgage on its balance sheet. If you think the Fed bought whole mortgages off banks for keepsies, or lost a single cent on its bailouts, you’ve missed something.
> Fed has almost 3 trillion of mortgages on its books
“Mortgage-backed obligations held by Federal Reserve Banks…guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae” [1]. Not mortgages. It’s a subtle difference. But a big one, given the top tranches of mortgage-backed securities never faced a solvency (versus a liquidity) problem.
There is literally 0 functional difference. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored entities. They buy conforming mortgages from banks, package them up into a mortgage-backed securities, and then sell them on the open market. The Fed buys these. So your claim that the Fed doesn’t buy mortgages because “ackshually Fannie Mae buys the mortgage” doesn’t hold much water. And in fact, the only real reason Fannie Mae can guarantee mortgages is because ultimately the Fed can step in to buy any distressed assets.
The Fed is 'Governance'. It's just not democratic and didn't arrive into it's current situation the way we would have liked it.
It acts in essentially the same manner as 'Bank of England' or the 'ECB' just structured a bit differently.
The Fed's massive intervention in 2008 was similar to other Central Banks, because it's effectively the same thing i.e. 'governance'.
The Fed's intervention to 'buy mortgages' is not a 'market response' - it's a 'government response'.
The intervention was mostly related to buying mortgages (however they ares structured is secondary) and is de-facto a bailout of Home Owners, who, if they were subject to normal market conditions, would have faced massive foreclosures, and, would have destroyed home prices for everyone else, furthering the calamity.
That the mortgages on the Fed's Balance sheet were not 'the worst' of the assets is a bit of a side show - in 'current market terms' they were all toxic we know that because nobody wanted to buy them, which is why the Fed had to do a 'non market intervention'.
If they were not basically 'garbage' at the time, the Fed would not have had to intervene to buy them.
As a result, the Fed hold's a giant pile of 'mortgages'.
This comment is a good example of why popularly-controlled central banks fail within a generation. The lack of understanding is understandable. The insistence on doubling down on it is not.
In the way Sudafed is meth. Agency MBS’s never faced solvency questions. Unrated mortgage-backed securities and whole mortgages did. You are argued the Fed bought toxic crap off banks. It didn’t. It bought the cream of the crop, giving banks liquidity with which to address the rest.
The difference between mortgages and agency MBSs is entry-level finance. You don’t need to know it. But you should understand your circles of competence well enough to know not to debate it.
Look at the giant bump in 2008 in Fed assets. Most of that is mortgages.
And then in 2019 an even bigger calamity.
Those massive jumps represent the finantialization of the USA, a massive form of economic shift.
[1] https://wallstreetonparade.com/2022/06/fed-data-shows-a-half...