Daniel Mudd wanted the loans to “optimize the business“…
Internal documents show that even late in the housing bubble, Fannie Mae was drawn to risky loans by a variety of temptations, including the desire to increase its market share and fulfill government quotas for the support of low-income borrowers.
Hmm. Just a few weeks back, Paul Krugman said (emphasis mine)…
But here’s the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.
You’d think a professor of economics (at Princeton University no less) might have some idea what he is talking about, particularly when allowed to regularly op-ed at the New York Times. Note that this wasn’t supposition – it was an attempt to relay facts well after the events.
Even though they’ve long been THE largest purchaser of mortgages, maybe the fact that Fannie Mae didn’t originate the pile of bad loans equates to “had nothing to do with”? I wish I knew the answer, but I’m no famed academic.
UPDATE: Oops…h/t to Paul Kedrosky on the Post story.