The Heritage Foundation

Executive Memorandum #451 on Regulation

May 30, 1996

May 30, 1996 | Executive Memorandum on Regulation

The Enterprise Resource Bank Act:  Moving In The WrongDirection

Representative Richard Baker (R-LA) recently introduced legislation to reform the Federal Home Loan Banking System. One day after Congressman Baker and 13 co-sponsors introduced the Enterprise Resource Bank Act of 1996 (H.R. 3167), the measure was approved unanimously by the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Government-Sponsored Enterprises. The full House Banking Committee mark-up is expected soon. But although the problems of the Federal Home Loan Banking System need to be addressed, H.R. 3167 is a serious step in the wrong direction.

The structure of the Federal Home Loan Banking System, created in 1932, is similar to that of the Federal Reserve System. The 12 regional home loan banks (FHL Banks) provide long-term loans (known as "advances") to member savings institutions, which are required to collateralize the advances with residential mortgages. The purpose of the Federal Home Loan Bank System has been to provide a ready source of long-term mortgages to home buyers. While privately owned and operated, the FHL Banks are considered government-sponsored enterprises because of their federal origin and public responsibilities, and because their obligations are considered implicitly guaranteed by the federal government.

While this system made sense many years ago, the creation and subsequent growth of a secondary mortgage market, along with the emergence of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), has made the mission of the FHL Banks obsolete. As a result, the FHL Banks increasingly have begun to move into new activities, including the purchase of securitized mortgages (often from the other government-sponsored enterprises).

H.R. 3167 would give the FHL Banks a new and questionable mission. They would be renamed Enterprise Resource Banks, but would continue to operate largely within the same regulatory structure as the one within which the FHL Banks now operate. However, the new banks would enjoy a greatly expanded scope of operation. The newly constituted Enterprise Resource Banks would not be limited to mortgage-collateralized advances. They also could provide advances for small business loans, economic development project loans, and rural development project loans.

Although well-intentioned, H.R. 3167 is the wrong way to reform the FHLB System. Among the problems:

  • Enterprise Resource Banks would enjoy an unfair advantage over their private counterparts. It is widely held that bonds issued by FHL Banks are insured by the federal government. This is because the FHL Banks serve a perceived public interest, and taxpayers likely would be required to foot the bill were the banks to default on their loan obligations. This implicit guarantee allows FHL Banks to raise funds in the capital markets at a lower cost than private companies. Currently, this advantage is limited to the mortgage lending market. However, H.R. 3167 would expand the FHL Banks' advantage into other markets. In fact, some analysts believe the only market prohibited by the bill to Enterprise Resource Banks would be large commercial loans to suburban businesses.1 Private financial service companies in every other market would be faced with increased competition from advantaged, publicly supported Enterprise Resource Bank members.

  • H.R. 3167 would create an increasingly powerful and deleterious government presence in the capital markets. The FHL Banks already are the third-largest borrowers in the nation, trailing only the Department of the Treasury and Fannie Mae. By enlarging the theater of FHL Bank operations, H.R. 3167 would increase the share of the capital market effectively controlled by the federal government. As Enterprise Resource Banks moved into new markets, they might be able to dominate those markets easily because of their advantageous position, granted by implicit federal guarantee against default. They would quickly become the "800 pound gorilla" of the capital markets. Thus, federal statutes and regulations, rather than the free market, increasingly would determine the allocation of credit.

  • Federal Home Loan Banks are not experienced in the proposed new areas of responsibility. FHL Banks have been limited to mortgage-collateralized advances for the past 60 years. Moreover, until 1989 FHL Banks were limited to serving savings and loans. It was only with passage of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 that other financial institutions were able to apply for FHLB advances. H.R. 3167 would expand the nature of advances that Enterprise Resource Banks could make, as well as the structure of financial institutions that could apply for these advances. But such a broad step is like allowing an airline pilot to navigate a cruise ship. FHL Banks simply do not have the experience to advance broadly collateralized funds to various financial service providers, and H.R. 3167 does not give them specific guidance in these matters. Moreover, many of the new responsibilities, such as providing small business and community development loans, already are carried out by other federal programs. The new responsibilities of the Enterprise Resource Banks would duplicate these programs, most of which are themselves in need of serious reform.

  • Taxpayers would incur increased risk. These problems would increase taxpayer exposure to risk if the new Enterprise Resource system were to fail. Because the system would remain a government-sponsored enterprise providing some public services, it is unlikely that the federal government would allow the Enterprise Resource Banks to fail. Taxpayers would be forced to pay the bill in the event of such a failure. Increasing the scope of the system's operations increases not only the potential size of such a bailout, but also its likelihood.

Instead of finding new and duplicative responsibilities for the FHL Banks, Congress and the President should privatize the banks and allow them to restructure as necessary, outside the umbrella of taxpayer protection. Privatization of the FHL Banks has broad support from experts, the banking industry, and the Administration. Indeed, in a letter to Representative Jim Leach (R-IA), chairman of the House Banking Committee, the Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, John D. Hawke, states that privatization is a better answer to the problems of the FHL Banks than increasing their theater of operations.

If Congress truly wants to help distressed areas and increase the availability of credit, it should act to modernize the financial services sector by deregulating it. Representative Baker already has introduced legislation (H.R. 814) that would begin to do this. Allowing commercial banks to affiliate with investment banks and other commercial and financial companies would increase the availability of credit for consumers and the investment opportunities for all businesses, including those in distressed areas. On the other hand, H.R. 3167 would raise the level of government involvement in the credit markets. Rather than help distressed areas, this would place taxpayers of all income levels at a greater risk.

Endnotes

  1. "Statement of the Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee on Proposed Legislation on Enterprise Resource Banks," Statement No. 133, May 6, 1996.

About the Author