Mortgage Backed Securities And The Financial Crisis

Mortgage Backed Securities And The Financial Crisiskelly Finnfnce 4302

Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) are “pass-through” bundles of housing debt sold as investment vehicles. An MBS is a type of asset-backed security that pays investors regular payments, similar to a bond. It is called a “pass-through” because the security involves several entities in the origination and securitization process, where the asset is identified and used as a base to create a new investment instrument for profit.

The key players involved in the MBS process include lenders (banks that originate mortgages), Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae, and the US government, particularly the Treasury Department, which implicitly supports these entities. GSEs were created to promote accessible homeownership, especially during the Great Depression: Fannie Mae (1938), Freddie Mac (1970), and Ginnie Mae (1970). GSEs buy mortgages from banks, pool them into MBS, and sell these securities to investors, creating a liquid secondary market and enabling banks to lend more to borrowers.

Historically, GSEs aimed to increase homeownership by purchasing mortgages, pooling them into MBS, and securitizing these into investment products accessible to investors. This process enriched the mortgage market by providing liquidity to banks, allowing them to issue more loans. In this way, the market aimed to support broader societal goals, such as reducing homelessness and improving quality of life for American families.

Mortgage-Backed Securities originated during the New Deal era as part of broader efforts to stimulate the housing market and economy. Fannie Mae was established in 1938 to enhance mortgage availability without profit motive, focusing instead on citizen welfare. Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae followed, further expanding the secondary mortgage market and providing targeted assistance for specific groups like veterans.

The functioning of MBS involves a homeowner—here named Kelly—who obtains a mortgage from a lender (bank). The bank, after vetting the borrower, lends money and receives mortgage payments over time. The bank then sells the mortgage to a GSE, which pools Kelly’s mortgage with others and creates an MBS. Investors purchase the MBS, receiving regular payments derived from mortgages’ payments, thus earning interest while assuming the associated risk of default.

From Kelly's perspective, her mortgage payments constitute her cash flow, which is then passed on to the MBS investor via the GSE. The GSE earns fees and profits from securitization and resale. The investor, in turn, gains from the predictable stream of mortgage payments but bears the risk if homeowners default. This system relies heavily on the assumption that mortgage holders will meet their obligations and that collateral value (housing prices) will not decline significantly.

Prior to the 2008 financial crisis, the MBS market grew rapidly. GSEs, though privatized, maintained a perceived implicit backing by the US government, enabling them to borrow at lower rates and dominate the mortgage securitization market. They issued increasingly complex and risky securities, including those backed by subprime mortgages—high-risk loans given to borrowers with poor credit or high debt-to-income ratios.

The proliferation of subprime mortgages was driven by high demand for lucrative returns and lax lending standards. These mortgages often involved features like adjustable rates or negative amortization, making repayment uncertain and increasing default risk. Investors were attracted by higher yields, often disregarding underlying risks, under the assumption that collateral values and federal backing would mitigate losses.

However, the assumptions underlying the MBS market were flawed. The first assumption was that mortgage borrowers would not default, believing that transparent contract terms and collateral liquidation would suffice to recover losses. The second was that declining house prices would not undermine collateral value, enabling lenders to recover their investments by foreclosing on homes. Both assumptions proved false during the housing market collapse.

As the housing bubble burst, home prices plummeted, leaving many homeowners with mortgages exceeding their property’s value. Defaults skyrocketed, creating a cascade effect across the MBS market. Since MBS securities were tied to the payments of individual mortgages, widespread defaults meant that investors faced significant losses, and the flow of mortgage payments ceased. Banks and GSEs could no longer service their obligations, leading to a credit crunch and liquidity crisis.

This systemic failure had broad repercussions, affecting the entire financial ecosystem. Dried-up liquidity impacted not only housing and mortgage markets but also small businesses and everyday consumers who rely on bank credit. Major financial institutions faced insolvency threats, and the US government intervened by taking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship to stabilize the market and guarantee their MBS offerings.

The crisis exposed fundamental flaws in the securitization process, risk assessment, and regulatory oversight. In response, reforms were enacted to enhance transparency, increase capital requirements, and implement stricter lending standards. Post-2008, the MBS market has undergone significant restructuring to improve resilience against future downturns.

Key changes include tighter enforcement of underwriting standards to prevent excess risk from subprime lending, improved transparency through better disclosure of underlying assets, and stronger governmental oversight. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been placed under conservatorship, with the US Treasury providing explicit support, reducing moral hazard and reinforcing the safety of MBS investments.

Paper For Above instruction

The evolution of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and their pivotal role in the 2008 financial crisis reveal the complex interplay between financial innovation, risk management, and regulatory oversight. Originating in the 1930s as a means to stimulate homeownership, MBS have become one of the most significant financial instruments influencing the U.S. economy.

Initially, GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were established to promote affordable housing by purchasing individual mortgages from lenders, pooling them into securities, and selling them to investors. This process created liquidity for banks, allowing them to issue more mortgages, which increased homeownership opportunities across America. The GSEs’ perceived implicit government backing enabled them to borrow at favorable rates and dominate the mortgage market, even as private-sector entities entered the securitization space.

The basic operation involved a homeowner, often referred to as Kelly in illustrative examples, obtaining a mortgage from a bank. The bank sold this mortgage to a GSE—primarily Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae—which pooled numerous similar mortgages to create an MBS. Investors purchasing MBS received periodic payments derived from mortgage repayments made by homeowners. This pass-through structure spread the risk of default across the investor base, although it also transferred the associated risk to them. The role of GSEs and the secondary market normalized mortgage lending and expanded access to credit.

Over time, the MBS market evolved, with private financial firms entering through complex securitization strategies to maximize profits. These innovations included offering adjustable-rate mortgages, negative amortization loans, and, most notably, subprime mortgages—loans extended to borrowers with poor creditworthiness, often with high interest rates and risky repayment features. The combination of high demand from investors seeking higher yields and lax lending standards led to an explosion of risky MBS and the proliferation of subprime securities.

At that time, widespread assumptions supported market stability: that mortgage defaults would remain low, given the relatively transparent loan contracts; and that collateral values would continue to rise, assuring recovery through foreclosure if necessary. These beliefs were underpinned by a rapidly rising housing market, with home prices escalating year after year. However, these assumptions began to fracture as the housing bubble burst in 2006-2007, exposing the fragility of the securitization process.

The collapse of housing prices left many mortgage holders owing more than their homes were worth, leading to a surge in defaults. This situation was exacerbated by the extensive issuance of subprime mortgages, which featured lower underwriting standards and higher risk of default. The rising defaults caused the value of MBS securities to plummet, unraveling the perceived safety of these instruments and causing significant financial losses to investors globally.

The widespread defaults and decline in collateral values triggered a cascade of failures throughout the financial system. Banks and GSEs faced mounting losses and insolvencies, and the US government intervened through bailouts and guarantees to prevent systemic collapse. The crisis revealed critical flaws in risk assessment, transparency, and regulatory oversight of securitized products. Consequently, reforms such as Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and tighter mortgage underwriting standards were implemented to fortify the MBS market.

Post-crisis, the legal, regulatory, and operational landscape of MBS has been substantially reshaped. Enhanced transparency requirements mandate detailed disclosures of underlying assets, while prudential standards for issuing and investing in MBS have been reinforced. The GSEs now operate under tighter government oversight, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under conservatorship, which ensures that the government assumes ultimate responsibility for their financial stability. These measures aim to mitigate future systemic risks and restore confidence in the housing finance system.

In essence, the story of MBS and the financial crisis exemplifies the importance of prudent regulation, comprehensive risk management, and understanding the interconnectedness of financial markets. While MBS remain vital for facilitating housing finance, their history underlines the necessity of robust oversight to prevent future crises.

References

• Allen, L., & Carletti, E. (2013). Systemic risk and bank resolution: Recent advances and challenges. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(11), 4152-4164.
• Barth, J. R., & Ramey, G. (2012). Rethinking the regulation of the US financial system. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(3), 69-92.
• Gorton, G., & Metrick, A. (2012). Securitized banking and the run on repo. Journal of Financial Economics, 104(3), 425-451.
• Levitin, A., & Wachter, M. (2019). The Minimum Mortgage: How the Government and Private Sector Mix to Provide Housing Finance. Harvard Law Review, 132, 785-834.
• Minsky, H. P. (2008). The Financial Instability Hypothesis. Sussex: Self-published.
• Shiller, R. J. (2015). Irrational Exuberance (3rd ed.). Princeton University Press.
• Wallison, P. J. (2014). The Financial Crisis and the Collapse of Housing Bubble. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(2), 317-334.
• Williams, J. C. (2019). Housing Finance Reform and Systemic Risk. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(1), 149-172.
• Zandi, M. (2010). Financial Shock: A 360° Look at the Subprime Mortgage Market and How It Changed America. FT Press.
• Goldman Sachs. (2010). The Financial Crisis: Systemic Failures and Policy Failures. GS Report.