These links prove nothing. The Atlantic article's graphics in fact prove my point, but they go on to conjecture by saying that because the GSE's made money, they caused loose lending standards in banks, which is BS by any measure. Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with other banks determining the risks that those institutions were willing to take on. The bump in origination's was due to the refi boom of 2001-2003, which of course was due directly to the Fed's policies. Those policies had their roots in the deep recession that followed the dot-com bust and 9/11.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
It is incorrect to attribute the housing bubble to Fannie and Freddie. The loans they were allowed to purchase (remember, they don't originate any) were highly regulated and were substantially less risky. The GSE's saw significant erosion of market share in 2005-2008, due mostly to the securitization of Option ARM's, no-doc loans, etc. provided by companies like Countrywide, WAMU, Citi, and others which were being used to purchase ever more expensive homes.
If you are looking for organizational villians, look no further than the banks that went bankrupt (like Countrywide) and the survivors who had just enough strength and political influence to not fail (i.e., Citi) as well as ratings organizations who stamped anything that was an MBS with an A rating.
While the OFHEO response to changing market conditions for the GSE's was an increased allowance of low-doc loans, even so the market share owned by Fannie and Freddie was trending down until the markets broke and they became monopsony buyers of loans following the credit crunch. Then regulations were changed and we're back to the conditions of 2004 and before, where loans must be conforming, albeit with the revision of conforming loan limits for certain high cost markets. In a very real sense, Fannie and Freddie today are doing exactly what they were chartered to do. If there was no Fannie or Freddie today you couldn't get a refi, much less a new mortgage.
The American team packed this stuff up and shipped it off to India, they (the American) teams were forced to transition the knowledge, and then they were given 90 days to find new jobs.
The Indian outsourcer initially provided packing foam, which didn't meet project specifications. They took a second pass with aluminum cans, which still didn't work. Then as they tried to correct the problem the whole team to which it was outsourced got better paying jobs and the IP was lost. The division VP claimed victory with a cost reduction and since there were no immediate orders for the foam that couldn't be filled nobody could or would bludgeon him with the reality, that they lost a competency that was mission critical.
Yes, I'm joking. Doesn't make it untrue.