将房利美和房地美私有化会意味着更高的抵押贷款利率吗？

@SamoyedsAreFluffy
Privatize the profits but still have taxpayers on the hook if things go wrong? Where's the upside to this?
 
把利润私有化，但如果出了问题，还是让纳税人来承担？这种做法有什么好处？
 
@ViolaBradford
Few wealthy individuals will make large profits; taxpayers will bear the cost.
Profits are privatized, while losses are socialized. That is the American way!
 
少数富人会赚取巨额利润；纳税人将承担成本。
利润私有化，损失社会化。这就是美国的方式！
 
@bakerkawesa
Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the poor.
 
富人享受社会主义，穷人享受资本主义。
 
@forg5025
Bad idea... especially wirh how untrustworthy companies and CEOs are these days. It'll make things worse. Consumer credit isnt the issue for the economy.
 
这是个坏主意……特别是现在公司和CEO如此不可信。会让情况更糟。消费者信贷才不是经济问题的根源。
 
@TM-zp1dc
When this thing blows up again, will the voters remember who to blame? That’s the problem in this country.
 
当这一切再次崩溃时，选民们会记得该怪谁吗？这就是这个国家的问题。
 
@reybigg811
To think I sold my house 2022 3.7% rate, paid 190k, 4bed/3bath on 3 acres. Bought it with a 70k salary. Those were the days.
 
想想看，我在2022年以3.7%的利率卖掉了我的房子，花了19万美元买了一个4卧3卫、3英亩的房子。那时我的年薪是7万美元。真是美好的日子。
 
@rok1475
Few rich people will make huge profits, taxpayers will foot the bill.
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. That’s the American way!
 
少数富人会赚取巨额利润，纳税人将为此埋单。
利润私有化，损失社会化。这就是美国的方式！
 
@andrewsalmon100
Fascinating. A formerly private oligopolistic housing hedge fund which gets bailed out and its supervisory functions soon to be hobbled and then privatised.
 
令人着迷。一家曾经是私营的寡头垄断型房地产对冲基金得到了救助，随后其监管职能将被削弱，然后私有化。
 
@keylanph
The housing affordability crisis is pretty simple. Rates aren’t the issue, the home price is the issue. Tax primary residences low, secondary homes at 50% more and then double that tax rate for each additional property. Apply this same logic to any corporation who owns single family or multi family units and leave no loopholes. Housing was never meant to be an investment class asset aside from your primary home. We need to get ahold of this before we’re in a situation like China.
 
住房负担危机其实很简单。利率不是问题，房价才是问题。对主要住宅征低税，对第二套房征收50%的税，再对每增加一套房的税率翻倍。对任何拥有单户或多户住宅的公司也适用这个逻辑，且不能有任何漏洞。住房从来不应该是一个投资类资产，除了你的主要住宅。我们必须控制住这个问题，否则我们会陷入像中国那样的困境。
 
@headfirst6227
Any talk about mortgage backed securities reminds me of credit default swaps and what a fiasco that was.
Edit: You did cover that part and I thank you for that. I sent my comment as soon as I was triggered.
 
任何关于抵押贷款支持证券的讨论都让我想起信用违约掉期，以及那场灾难。
编辑：你确实提到了这一部分，谢谢你。我是在被触发后立即发的评论。
 
@desiv1170
Higher mortgage rates are NOT the problem.
Yes, they are painful.  Especially now...  
But the problem is the crazy home prices.
If the prices were somewhat reasonable, then bouncing mortgage rates would just be what they are...  Normal...
People fixating on those PAINFUL HIGH RATES are distracting us from the real problem.  High home prices.
My parents paid an 18% interest rate for a while on their home.  It was painful, but it wasn't a problem.  Because rates go up and down.  And they should.
But housing prices shouldn't be what they are..  That's the problem!
 
更高的抵押贷款利率并不是问题。
是的，它们很痛苦，尤其是现在...
但问题是疯狂的房价。
如果房价合理一些，那么抵押贷款利率波动就会像它们本来应该的那样……正常…
人们把注意力集中在那些痛苦的高利率上，忽略了真正的问题。高房价。
我父母曾在他们的房子上支付过18%的利率，虽然痛苦，但那不是问题。因为利率是会上下波动的，这本来就该如此。
但房价不应该是现在这个样子... 那才是问题！
 
@jakeoreilly9627
watching millionaires talk about housing
 
看着百万富翁讨论住房问题
 
@dukelynch6973
It doesn't matter, starter homes are still too expensive to purchase for first-time home buyers
 
这没关系，首套房对于首次购房者来说依然太贵了
 
@giovanni4304
Sure go private but if things go belly up they better leave the tax payers out of it this time.
 
当然可以私有化，但如果事情崩盘了，这次最好不要让纳税人来买单。
 
@kevoreilly6557
Yes - strictly speaking you can’t actually “privatize”as both are GSCs that underwrite the debt with government securitization / it’s why the aid is one of the few places in the world with 30 year fixed loans.
Just look at the student loan market and you can see the myth of privatization
 
是的，严格来说你实际上不能完全“私有化”，因为两者都是政府资助企业（GSE），它们通过政府证券化来承保债务/这也是美国少数几个能提供30年固定贷款的地方之一。
看看学生贷款市场，你就能看到私有化的神话。
 
@EdwardsGambit
Things will only get worse if they become private again
 
如果它们重新变成私有的，情况只会变得更糟。
 
@GetCedar
Fascinating insights into the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the U.S. mortgage market. The potential shift from government oversight to private markets could have significant implications on mortgage rates. Definitely a space to watch closely as policy discussions unfold!
 
关于房利美和房地美在美国抵押贷款市场中的角色，真是令人着迷。政府监管转向私人市场的潜在变化，可能会对抵押贷款利率产生重大影响。随着政策讨论的展开，这绝对是一个值得关注的领域！
 
@Pyrrhic.
So in good times, the private sector benefits. Run the organization to extract maximum profits then ask government for a bailout when it goes to crap.
 
在好时光里，私营部门受益。把组织经营到最大化利润，然后在情况糟糕时向政府求救。
 
@thetrustysidekick3013
The oligarchs are salivating. You’re in for a ride, Americans. You voted for this.
 
寡头们正在垂涎三尺。美国人，你们准备好迎接挑战了吗？你们选的就是这个结果。
 
@rawnet101
Privatisation ALWAYS leads to higher prices. Replacing the service motive with a profit motive means service goes down and prices go up because CEOs are obliged to act in the companies best interests. It legally diverts public money into private hands, and we shouldn’t continue to be fooled by it.
 
私有化总是导致价格上涨。将服务动机替换为利润动机意味着服务质量下降，价格上涨，因为CEO必须代表公司的最佳利益行事。这实际上把公共资金转移到了私人手中，我们不应该继续被这种情况蒙蔽。
 
@Geovannyguzman88
There can be no doubt that this year is shaping up to be harder. When I look back, I see I made poor choices with money last year because I was focused on my investments. I had to decide between adding to my portfolio or buying a house. Selling my things made me realize the house needed more repairs than I had planned for. I’m struggling to keep going.
 
毫无疑问，今年将会更艰难。当我回头看时，我意识到去年我在金钱上的选择很差，因为我专注于投资。我必须在增加投资组合和买房之间做出选择。卖掉我的东西让我意识到房子比我预想的需要更多修理。我正在努力坚持下去。
 
@skyak4493
The conservatorship simply comes from the implicit government backing.  There is nothing stopping anyone from creating their own lender with their own insurance.  The fact they don’t is proof that the Fannies must not retain the implicit insurance if they leave conservatorship.
 
托管权实际上源于隐性政府支持。没有什么能阻止任何人创建自己的贷款公司和保险。事实是，他们没有这么做，证明了如果房利美和房地美脱离托管，它们就不能继续保持隐性保险。
 
@fluxcapacitor1621
Privatizing anything results in a higher cost to consumer.  Shareholders add overhead without providing any value.
 
私有化任何东西都会导致消费者成本增加。股东增加了开销，却没有提供任何价值。
 
@chaunceem
Just relocate the US government to Wall Street already. We did this before. We got  receipts from the last time they were privatized.
 
干脆把美国政府搬到华尔街吧。我们之前就做过这件事。我们有上次私有化的账单。
 
@ft9kop
Post WW2 communities are overwhelmingly zoned single family detached with large setbacks. It's illegal for a family to even add an addition to their house, say for parents to move in or give more space to a growing family because it would violate the setback. The township would likely reject the variance application too
 
二战后，社区通常都被划定为单户住宅，并且有很大的退缩要求。即使是为了让父母搬进来或者给成长中的家庭提供更多空间，家庭也无法对房子进行扩建，因为这会违反退缩规定。镇政府很可能也会拒绝变更申请。
 
@kibble-net
We already have a private mortgage industry. The point of these agencies was to be a public service to help low income homebuyers. Privatize profits, socialized losses, it's the Republican way.
 
我们已经有了私人抵押贷款行业。这些机构的存在本应是为了作为公共服务，帮助低收入购房者。私有化利润、社会化亏损，这就是共和党的做法。
 
@albertoserrano67
In California fire prone areas no longer eligible for insurance will lose out on being able to afford a mortgage to begin with.
 
在加利福尼亚州，火灾高风险区不再符合保险资格的人，将无法负担得起抵押贷款。
 
@CastleWall117
All this talk and it reeks of pre 2008. Get more MBS out to market investors, raise BS capital from risky predatory loans, easy shareholder returns and boost to a Freddie and Fannie Stock Price. Private Equity would jump into this with water foaming in their mouths leading to even more expensive starter homes, and higher cost of borrowing for middle class.
 
这一切讨论让我想起了2008年之前的情形。更多的MBS（抵押贷款支持证券）推向市场投资者，筹集不靠谱的资本，靠高风险掠夺性贷款，轻松给股东带来回报，推高了房利美和房地美的股价。私募股权公司会蜂拥而至，贪婪地抢占市场，导致入门级住房更加昂贵，中产阶级借贷成本也更高。
 
@ericeven4090
My friend is buying a new house and is proud he has a 5% arm loan.  I thought those werent allowed anymore but i guess i was wrong.  Because he is younger and its his first house he doesnt recall what happened in 2008.  I wished him luck lol
 
我的朋友正在买一栋新房，他很自豪自己拿到了5%的可调利率贷款。我本以为这种贷款已经不允许了，但看来我错了。因为他年轻，这是他的第一套房子，所以他记不得2008年发生的事。我祝他好运，哈哈。
 
@tracyalan7201
People forget the mortgage debacle of several years ago impacting not just Americans but worldwide.  Where mortgages were sold as bundled on the stock market and when it was learned of overvalued properties and purchases with little capital to continue paying collapsed, leaving huge debts.  If education, consumer protection, and a scale of government agencies are collapsed, what protects the consumer from fraud, from greed, corruption, negligence, incompetence of individuals, businesses, corporations.   Housing market will collapse, dropping prices of properties when panicked sellers sell for pennies. Only the carpet baggers (wealthy/greedy) will benefit on gaining more property, control businesses and rents.
 
人们忘记了几年前的抵押贷款危机，这不仅影响了美国，也影响了全球。当时抵押贷款被捆绑出售到股市，而当过高估值的房产和几乎没有资本支付的贷款崩溃时，留下了巨额债务。如果教育、消费者保护以及政府机构的规模被削减，谁来保护消费者免受欺诈、贪婪、腐败、疏忽、无能的个人、企业和公司的伤害？住房市场将崩溃，房价将在卖家恐慌抛售时大幅下跌。只有那些投机分子（富人/贪婪者）会从中获利，获取更多房产，控制企业和租金。
 
@peterponcedeleon3368
Get government out of the business of subsidizing home loans. And the federal reserve needs to set rates at a market rate. These are part of the solution and they must be done in order for us to fix this mess.
 
让政府退出补贴住房贷款的业务。美联储需要将利率设定为市场利率。这些是解决问题的一部分，必须执行才能修复当前的局面。
 
@rocaverde2829
The government gets involved initially to help people attain what many cannot afford.  However in the long run much of this becomes unaffordable.  Housing, health care, education, day care, etc. ?
 
政府最初介入是为了帮助许多人实现他们无法负担的事情。然而从长远来看，这些变得越来越无法负担。住房、医疗、教育、托儿所等问题呢？
 
@jordankendall86
If they actually run like an actual private company, then yes rates will go up for sub prime borrowers.  However the mortgages are backed by the government so no matter if they are private or not, the government will dictate what underwriting they are allowed to do.  These private companies were created by the government, so the government can easily shut them down or do whatever they want.  The fact the government easily took them over during the financial crisis should tell you all you need to know.  Therefore rates won't change under private ownership.  The real solution is not allowing these government sponsored organizations to securitize low or no down payment mortgages.  But that will never happen either.
 
如果它们真的像真正的私营公司那样运作，那么是的，次贷借款人的利率会提高。然而，这些抵押贷款是由政府担保的，所以无论它们是私营的还是公营的，政府都会决定它们可以做的承保标准。这些私人公司是由政府创建的，所以政府可以轻松关闭它们或做任何它们想做的事情。事实上，政府在金融危机期间轻松接管了它们，这应该告诉你一切。因此，利率在私人拥有下不会改变。真正的解决办法是不允许这些政府资助的组织将低首付或无首付的抵押贷款证券化。但这也永远不会发生。
 
@drew1913
Imagine if in 2008 the mortgage companies saw their deferred interest rates destroying American’s lives, and they decided to keep the mortgage rates where they were originally when the banks sold the loans to the borrowers. We could’ve completely avoided the 2008 housing crash, but better to have our government give these banks the money to lend so then the banks can can repossess our homes and keep the tax money given to the them.
 
想象一下，如果在2008年，抵押贷款公司看到了他们的递延利率摧毁了美国人的生活，而他们决定保持银行最初出售贷款时的利率。我们本可以完全避免2008年的住房危机，但更好的做法是让政府给这些银行提供资金，让它们可以收回我们的房子，并保留给予它们的税款。
 
@keiththoma2559
Why not keep them as an independent federal agency similar in structure to USPS? Their charter could require them to hold liquidity in reserves in case of downturns. Excess profits it generates can be paid into a sovereign wealth fund similar to what Trump wants to create.
 
为什么不将它们保持为一个独立的联邦机构，结构类似于美国邮政服务？它们的章程可以要求它们在经济下滑时持有流动性储备。它们所产生的多余利润可以支付进主权财富基金，类似于特朗普想要创建的那种。
 
@jacquelynharper3659
The reason why housing is so expensive is because of supply and demand. The house your paying for sits on land owned by the government. The other issues are not just because of not enough housing but all the new regulations that now all new housing must be smart, echo efficiency, electrified etc which has also cost more money from these government regulations tgat have been enacted due  to the EPA. The other reason why housing is expensive is because the economy now is only in tech or life science in which these 20 to 30 something year olds are making between 200k to 400k annually in which if you are only making 80k a year but you've owned your home for two decades well everything now is expensive and csusing your taxes to rise. People then think by moving from an expensive housing market to a low cost housing market that somehow they imagine that their taxes will forever be lower and thatbit will be more affordable when it doesn't. There is no way out of this mess. This housing crisis is global not just a USA problem.
 
住房如此昂贵的原因是供需关系。你所支付的房子所在的土地是由政府拥有的。其他问题不仅仅是因为住房不足，还有所有新的规定，要求所有新建住房必须具备智能、节能、电子化等特点，这也增加了政府因环保局（EPA）实施的规定而产生的额外成本。住房昂贵的另一个原因是，现在经济主要集中在科技和生命科学领域，这些20到30岁的人年薪在20万到40万美元之间，而如果你每年收入只有8万美元，但已经拥有房产20年，那么现在一切都变得更加昂贵，导致税收上升。人们会认为，通过从昂贵的房地产市场搬到低成本的房地产市场，税收会一直保持较低，且住房会更实惠，但实际上并非如此。这个问题没有解决办法。住房危机是全球性的问题，不仅仅是美国的问题。
 
@yudhistiramahendradani5902
I bet the investor from other country will decrease as USA put the tariff.
Higher price in supplies make high price houses, only small number of peoples in USA that can buy them
Higher price mean higher risks to sell in the market while the USA president cut their works and left with lesser money to spend
 
我敢打赌，由于美国征收关税，来自其他国家的投资者将减少。
供应成本的提高导致房价上涨，只有少数美国人能买得起。
更高的价格意味着更高的市场风险，而美国总统削减了他们的工作，导致他们的钱更少。
 
@toastranger72
We need to make renting out single family homes an unattractive investment. If companies want to get into real estate, buy multi-family only.
High mortgage rates make it more appealing to companies by reducing competition. Many people cannot get a mortgage, so companies come in and pay cash, cheaper than before because of the lack of demand.
 
我们需要让单户住宅出租成为一个不具吸引力的投资。如果公司想进入房地产领域，只能购买多户住宅。
高利率使公司更有吸引力，因为它减少了竞争。许多人无法获得抵押贷款，因此公司以现金购买，因需求下降而比以前便宜。
 
@cleopatrajones2024
Do all of that without messing with people personally. You just can't go in and just totally eradicate what has been built. But we know what all of this is about. This is to make the few people who are billionaires, trillionaires.
 
做这些事情时不要干扰到个人。你不能随便去摧毁已经建立的东西。但我们都知道这一切背后的目的。这是为了让那些极少数的亿万富翁，甚至万亿富翁受益。
 
@beatgreens9530
I don’t even have to watch this, of course the prices will go up once it’s privatized. That’s what happens every single time we privatize something that was once government run.
 
我根本不用看这个，当然价格会涨，一旦私有化就是这样。每次我们把曾经由政府运营的东西私有化，结果都是如此。
 
@tallest4eva
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. American oligarchy at its best! Americans have the memory of goldfishes and vote for this time and time again.
 
私有化利润，社会化亏损。美国寡头政治的最佳体现！美国人记性像金鱼一样，一次又一次投票支持这种做法。
 
@PizzieNizzie
Everyone without a 30 year mortgage is subsidizing those with due to these government guarantees no market participant would ever underwrite. Literally ridiculous regressive taxation. Anyone with a 30 year mortgage should have their rate reset every few years to market or those without should receive tax credits. Let the market clear. All we have now is rent seeking behavior by speculators and people using their home as an ATM that collapses aggregate demand if there is even a minor retraction. They are lying as well in this video about subprime. PRIME borrowers defaulted just as much as sub prime borrowers and led to the most significant losses. They are lying about getting the "money" back as well for taxpayers. They got the same dollar value back 5 years later after they debased the currency for those 5 years. So in purchasing power terms they got back half.
 
没有30年抵押贷款的人正在为那些有的人提供补贴，原因是政府的担保，没有市场参与者会承担这种风险。简直是荒谬的倒退税收。所有有30年抵押贷款的人应该每隔几年把他们的利率调整为市场利率，或者那些没有的人应该获得税收抵免。让市场自行调整。我们现在看到的只是投机者的寻租行为以及一些人把房子当作ATM，导致整体需求萎缩，如果经济有任何小幅下滑。视频里他们也在撒谎，关于次贷的事情。事实上，优质借款人的违约率和次贷借款人一样高，甚至导致了最严重的损失。他们也在撒谎，说纳税人拿回了“钱”。实际上他们五年后才拿回相同的金额，而这五年间货币贬值了，所以从购买力角度来看，他们拿回的钱只是原来一半。
 
@alrxandersmiths242
I’m really not sure we should go messing with this one it’s got very little upside and whole lot problems I don’t want mortgages to be any more complicated than they are and adding a profit motivate that doesn’t exist now would be bad
 
我真不确定我们应该去动这个问题，它几乎没有什么好处，反而有很多麻烦。我不想让抵押贷款变得比现在更复杂，添加一个现在没有的利润动机会很糟糕。
 
@DarkHorseParatrooper
this is propaganda. Competitive market. Bs. Nobody can afford a house. People that can already have them, and ain't selling, cause they can't afford a new one. Not Competitive. Everyone's a hostage.
 
这就是宣传。竞争市场，胡说八道。没有人能买得起房子。那些已经有房子的人，不卖，因为他们买不起新房子。这不是竞争市场。每个人都是人质。
 
@gamesnstuff657
To potential home buyers may I offer this piece of advice to anchor you in this crazy housing market.  Run the numbers of home ownership and know your number of what you can responsibly afford.  Live below your means and save your money.  Don't let FOMO knock you off course.  The housing market has a big math problem, and one way or another it will correct in many markets.  If you live in California or New York, it probably won't correct any time soon, so you may need to get real with yourself and move.
 
给潜在购房者的建议是：在这个疯狂的房地产市场中，跑一下数字，了解你能负担得起的房屋价格。量力而行，省钱。不要让FOMO（错失恐惧症）把你从正轨上拉偏。房地产市场有个大数学问题，无论如何，很多市场都会纠正过来。如果你住在加州或纽约，那可能很长时间内都不会纠正，所以你可能需要面对现实，考虑搬家。
 
@RobertoMartinez-vs4yt
How many houses are still in forbearance or about to run out of it? Stop lying about the numbers. We have alot of houses that should of been forclosed on and also most homes are completely unaffordable today.
 
现在有多少房子仍处于延期付款中，或者即将到期？别再撒谎了。现在有很多房子本该被止赎，今天大多数房子完全无法负担。
 
@anthonyellis9804
Prices rise and fall based on the marketplace, labor, construction materials, land and mortgage rates.  Except right now it's not a marketplace if the government meddles with the free marketplace.  So government and non-investing taxpayers are continuing to throw honest investors in the GSE'S under the bus for a socialist idea that rates will be affordable forever, which is a pie in the sky notion.
 
价格上涨和下跌是由市场、劳动力、建筑材料、土地和抵押贷款利率决定的。除非现在政府干预了自由市场，否则这根本不是市场。所以政府和非投资纳税人继续把诚实的投资者推向政府担保的企业（GSE），为了一个社会主义的想法——利率永远会是负担得起的，这是个空想。
 
@Steven-xf8mz
At a high level; lenders made money by loaning out money to people, then sell them to FM for a profit. FM sells the good loans back to the market and keep the highest risky loan because govt can pick up the remaining tab if stuff goes wrong. it doesn't matter whether it's private or public, it's the same story where govt is just funneling money to the biggest lenders and banks, rich gets richer, poor get poorer. There is a lack of real business cycle due to collaboration between rich people and govt. the govt is the backer of all rich, these people may suffer monetary loss during hard times, but their share as % of overall wealth goes higher every crisis, thus, leading to their exponential wealth gain post crisis through govt rescue.
 
从高层次看，贷款人通过借钱给人赚取利润，然后卖给二级市场获利。二级市场把好的贷款卖回市场，保留最有风险的贷款，因为如果出问题，政府可以承担剩下的部分。无论是私有还是公有，都是一样的故事，政府只是将资金输送给最大的贷款机构和银行，富人越来越富，穷人越来越穷。由于富人和政府的合作，真正的商业周期缺失。政府是所有富人的后盾，这些人在困难时期可能会遭受货币损失，但他们在整体财富中的份额在每次危机后都会增加，从而通过政府的救助实现财富的指数级增长。
 
@travellingslim
Now that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been axed, lenders can start offering 40 or 45 year mortgages just to get the monthly payments within reach so Americans can be in debt forever! Isn't that exciting!
 
现在消费者金融保护局已经被裁撤，贷款人可以开始提供40年或45年的抵押贷款，只为了让每月还款额变得更加可接受，这样美国人就可以永远背负债务了！这不是很激动人心吗！