U.S. taxpayers could be on the hook for billions of dollars in climate-related property losses as the government backs a growing number of mortgages on homes in the path of floods, fires and extreme weather.
To understand the risk, consider Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored, taxpayer-backed enterprises that stand behind roughly half of the nation’s $11 trillion in residential mortgages. For decades, the companies have bought and guaranteed home loans in floodplains and other places vulnerable to natural disasters.
Fannie and Freddie have long been a deadly third rail in U.S. politics, especially after the 2008 housing collapse led to their $190 billion bailout. Since April 2019, the companies have been under the regulatory oversight of one of their biggest critics, Mark Calabria, a free-market economist who now leads the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
At a House Financial Services Committee hearing in October, Calabria said his agency was “very concerned” about the impact of natural disasters on Fannie and Freddie. “There are some systemic risks here which need to be considered and evaluated — and right now,” said former California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones. “U.S. financial regulators are much further behind in that regard.”
And where the risk of flooding is highest, the number of policies held has shrunk even faster, according to FEMA. In 2008, there were 2.5 million residential structures in floodplains insured by the NFIP. By the end of 2019, that number had fallen to fewer than 1.8 million.
Should not back insurance or mortgage alone any coast river lakes period
There are mortgages in Tornado Alley but that's not a climate change issue so that won't be in the article.
One flood coverage and done. The next one's solely on the back of the property owner. Full Stop.
So what I'm hearing is, stop subsidizing it.
More likely U.S. Taxpayers will Wade through 'Climate-Related' horse shit.
Canada Canada Latest News, Canada Canada Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: Forbes - 🏆 394. / 53 Read more »
Source: MarketWatch - 🏆 3. / 97 Read more »