The following may sound good, but exactly what would the "strict regulation" be and how would it be enforced?
Without special privileges, the firms should be forced to compete with other private companies willing to pay the government for its reinsurance, with strict regulation to ensure that community banks can originate and securitize mortgages on an even playing field with the giant banks that have come to dominate the business in the past four years. Such competition will spur innovation and reduce systemic risk in mortgage securitization. As the system spurs new entrants in mortgage finance, any one of them can fail — including the new Fannie and Freddie — without the threat of a housing market collapse.
Regulations were dismantled leading to the crash in the first place. Had they not been, the issues concerning Fannie and Freddie would be moot, would they not?
Fannie and Freddie have discovered that many of the mortgages presented to them to insure were done so fraudulently and both are continuing to force those who engaged in the deception to repay them, Fannie and Freddie. If the system is overhauled with proper regulations, why should Fannie and Freddie be privatized? Why should the people be forced back into overkill on mortgage standards that were designed for the pre-regulation era?
The withdrawal of regulations caused the problems. Why not simply re-regulate back to where things were before deregulation allowed for the Wall Street excesses of the deregulators and fraud that led directly to the real estate bubble and crash? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Here's some additional food for thought:
If you are an investor in 1-4 unit properties in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, or Washington, please do the financially responsible thing and make sure you have proper Landlord Insurance with PropertyPak™. We love focusing on real estate and the economy in general, but we are also here to serve your insurance needs.
Hill & Usher (PropertyPak™ is a division) has many insurance offerings. See our menu above for more info and links.
Did this post help you? Let us know by leaving your comment below.
Note: This blog does not provide legal, financial, or accounting advice. Seek professional counsel.
Furthermore, we, as insurance producers, are prohibited by law from disparaging the insurance industry, carriers, other producers, etc. With that in mind, we provide links without staking out positions that violate the law. We provide them solely from a public-policy standpoint wherein we encourage our industry to be sure our profits, etc., are fair and balanced.
We do not necessarily fact checked the contents of every linked article or page, etc.
If we were to conclude any part or parts of our industry are in violation of fundamental fairness and the legal standards of a state or states, we'd address the issue through proper, legal channels. We trust you understand.
The laws that tie our tongues, so to speak, are designed to keep the public from losing confidence in the industry and the regulatory system overseeing it. Insurance commissioners around the country work very hard to analyze rates and to not allow the industry to be damaged by bad rate-settings and changes in coverages. The proper way for people in the industry to deal with such matters is by adhering to the laws, rules, and regulations of the applicable states and within industry associations where such matters may be discussed in private without giving the industry unnecessary black eyes. Ethics is very high on the list in the insurance industry, and we don't want to lose the people's trust. That said, the industry is not perfect; but what industry is?
For our part, we believe in strong regulations and strong regulators.
We welcome your comments and ask you to keep in mind that we cannot and will not reply in any way or ways where any insurance commissioner could rightly say we've violated the law of the given state.
We are allowed to share rating-bureau data/reports and industry-consultant opinions but make clear here that those opinions are theirs and do not necessarily reflect our position.