fanny and freddie

Post #319,969 by boxley 1/13/10 8:48:15 AM Reply	fanny and freddie cooking books for big bonuses, Taking subprime loans and paying prime, they should be in jail. Oh wait! they are on the presidents staff, nevermind
Post #319,971 by Another Scott 1/13/10 9:50:00 AM Reply	That canard should be dead by now... http://www.huffingto...-ma_b_405117.html While Fannie and Freddie did get into subprime near the peak of the bubble in 2005, the vast majority of their assets were still tied to prime mortgages. These are mortgages in which people had to put 20 percent down or buy mortgage insurance. I suppose the CRE (commercial real estate) bubble and its continuing collapse is Fannie's and Freddie's fault too? :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #319,973 by boxley 1/13/10 11:22:02 AM Reply	all subprimes paid mortgage insurance or you couldnt float the loan. Besides I heard this on NPR must be true :-)
Post #319,974 by Another Scott 1/13/10 11:47:07 AM Reply	Hmmm... From September 2005: http://ezinearticles...d-No-PMI&id=72976 Sub-prime mortgages offer financing for those with poor credit to finance the purchase of a home. TodayÂs sub-prime mortgages offer low down payment options with no private mortgage insurance (PMI). As a result, more people are finding it easier to buy a home. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #319,980 by boxley 1/13/10 1:23:45 PM Reply	see: Hmmm... and raines you 24.7 mill http://seattletimes...._webraines18.html The amounts that Raines, Howard and Spencer are paying under the settlement are far less than what the government was seeking when it sued them in December 2006. OFHEO sought fines of around $100 million against the three and restitution totaling more than $115 million in bonus money tied to an improper accounting scheme. The regulators alleged an accounting fraud at Washington-based Fannie Mae that included manipulations to reach quarterly earnings targets so that Raines, Howard, Spencer and other company executives could pocket hundreds of millions in bonuses from 1998 to 2004.<.blockquote>they were too busy stealing to notice that the market was sour and now they are in obama's cabinet and on speed dial
Post #319,982 by Another Scott 1/13/10 3:44:26 PM Reply	Separate issue. Sure, Raines and the other big-wigs at Fannie Mae wanted to get in on the bubble profits. They messed around with the accounting to boost their profits. They should pay a price for that (as should everyone else who did the same thing.) But remember that Fannie Mae could only buy "conforming" mortgages and that limit has been $417k for most of the country since 2006. The really big mortgages couldn't be sold to FNMA. Fannie had little to do with the gross excesses in the housing bubble. The other stuff, like Rahm being on the board in 2000-2001, is noise, IMHO. Most boards are (far too) passive - the management (Chairman and CEO) does what they want. http://firedoglake.c...on-fanniefreddie/ Again, if it were mainly Fannie and Freddie, the CRE wouldn't have imploded worse than residential. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #319,983 by boxley 1/13/10 4:27:12 PM Reply	those same thieves are in charge of housing now is the point I was originally trying to make
Post #319,984 by Another Scott 1/13/10 4:33:46 PM Reply	Eh? http://www.snopes.co...ama/fanniemae.asp Try again? Cheers, Scott.
Post #319,985 by jake123 1/13/10 4:36:01 PM Reply	Oooh... supreme pwnage. Seriously, Box, treat some of the stuff you get a little more skeptically. That right there is a primo example of a wingnut misinformation meme.
Post #319,987 by boxley 1/13/10 5:50:12 PM Reply	On NPR? Hardly they are left of cbc right of bbc
Post #319,988 by Another Scott 1/13/10 6:26:27 PM Reply	You seem to have caught Beep's disease. You need to use more words. ;-) Are you talking about this? http://www.npr.org/t...storyId=113436350 It's an AP story that apparently was on NPR. If you're not talking about the pay for Fannie and Freddie executives, or you're not talking about the Christmas Eve announcement about the US guaranteeing all F&F's losses - http://www.calculate...ddie-changes.html , then what exactly? The people running F&F aren't the "same" as Raines and colleagues. And snopes showed that what you seemed to be saying above was wrong. Inquiring minds and all that. :-) Thanks. Cheers, Scott. (Who thinks that NPR is far more right-wing than most people believe.)
Post #319,989 by boxley 1/13/10 7:38:42 PM Reply	I listen to npr in the evenings, it was 2 days ago? On the fresh air or the show just before or after. thanx, bill
Post #319,990 by Another Scott 1/13/10 8:56:18 PM Reply	Broadcast times vary. Let's see... Assuming your station is WABE, it looks like it was either All Things Considered, Marketplace, or Fresh Air. http://www.pba.org/schedules/wabe/ I assume it wasn't on Performance Today. ;-) Nothing jumps out at me at ATC: http://www.npr.org/t...prgDate=1-11-2010 http://www.npr.org/t...prgDate=1-12-2010 Nothing jumps out at me at M: http://marketplace.p...t_date=01-11-2010 http://marketplace.p...t_date=01-12-2010 Nothing jumps out at me at FA: http://www.npr.org/t...prgDate=1-11-2010 http://www.npr.org/t...prgDate=1-12-2010 Did I miss it? Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #319,991 by boxley 1/13/10 9:35:21 PM 1/13/10 9:36:52 PM Reply	here http://marketplace.p...ordon-commentary/ For example, mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were at the very heart of this mess. Theoretically independent, profit-seeking corporations, they are headquartered in Washington, D.C., largely managed by politicians not businessmen, and deeply corrupt, with subprime mortgages reported as prime and books cooked to produce executive bonuses. snip And while the commission is supposed to be bi-partisan, six of the commissioners were appointed by Democratic leaders, only four by Republicans. So don't expect Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd to be summoned to testify any time soon. Frankly, it looks to me like the fix is in. now at the same time I flip back and forth to 89.3 a community radio station http://wrfg.org/schedule.asp I think the commentator there was making connections between raines and rahm and obama the same evening and I mashed it internally into one program with the NPR trademark. They would be considered far left down here and are very unhappy with the administration. Edited by boxley Jan. 13, 2010, 09:36:16 PM EST Edited by boxley Jan. 13, 2010, 09:36:52 PM EST Expand All History
Post #319,994 by Another Scott 1/13/10 10:21:08 PM 1/13/10 11:59:43 PM Reply	John Steele Gordon's out of his depth here. He's got a great radio voice, doesn't he? But he's out of his depth here. He also wears his bias on his sleeve. E.g. this commentary of his in the WSJ - http://online.wsj.co...530070436823.html Tanta of Calculated Risk was a mortgage banker with lots and lots of experience with mortgages. She lived the stuff, and saw the problems before many of the "masters of the universe". (She died of ovarian cancer in December 2008.) From July 2008: http://www.calculate...gman-on-gses.html [...] I think we can give Fannie and Freddie their due share of responsibility for the mess we're in, while acknowledging that they were nowhere near the biggest culprits in the recent credit bubble. They may finance most of the home loans in America, but most of the home loans in America aren't the problem; the problem is that very substantial slice of home loans that went outside the Fannie and Freddie box. But Krugman is right to focus on the fact that it was the regulatory and charter constraints of the GSEs that kept that box closed. In the schizoid reality of the GSEs, when they had their "shareholder-owned private company" hats on they did plenty of envelope-pushing. When they had their "affordable housing" hats on, they rationalized dubious theories of credit quality--like the fervent belief that low or no down payment can be fully offset by a pretty FICO score--to beef up their affordable housing goals, often at the expense not of the poor put-upon "private sector" but of FHA, whose traditional borrower pool they pretty thoroughly cherry-picked. Nonetheless, the immovable objects of the conforming loan limits and the charter limitation of taking only loans with a maximum LTV of 80% unless a well-capitalized mortgage insurer took the first loss position, plus all their other regulatory strictures, managed fairly well against the irresistible force of "innovation." If there has ever been an argument for serious regulation of the mortgage markets, the GSEs are it. [...] FWIW. [edit:] typo in Steele's name. Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott Jan. 13, 2010, 11:59:43 PM EST Expand All History
Post #319,993 by crazy 1/13/10 10:12:58 PM Reply	It doesn't work Simply saying you heard it on NPR means nothing. Yes, NPR is a bit left leaning, so of course if the goal is to get credibility via association (at least with people who pay attention to the news), then it was a good silly start. But WHO said it? In WHAT context? NPR interviews both sides all the time, I hear right wing garbage spouted all the time. Pay attention to who is saying what, and try to figure his motivation. This is a skill I'm trying to teach my daughter. You should try it sometime.
Post #320,007 by beepster 1/14/10 10:58:53 AM Reply	Dude, I caught it from box! ;-) I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #320,009 by Another Scott 1/14/10 11:15:27 AM Reply	:-D

Welcome to IWETHEY!