Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Why Is the Obama Administration Trying to Keep 11,000 Documents Sealed?

Why Is the Obama Administration Trying to Keep 11,000 Documents Sealed?

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-is-the-obama-administration-trying-to-keep-11-000-documents-sealed-20160418#ixzz46JMIgUtV

The "most transparent administration in history" has spent years trying to hide embarrassing financial secrets from the public.

It got weirder. Despite the fact that the GSEs went on to pay the government $228 billion over the next three years, or $40 billion more than they owed, none of that money went to paying off Fannie and Freddie's debt. When Sen. Chuck Grassley asked aloud how it was that the company and its shareholders were not yet square with the government, the Treasury Department testily answered, in essence, that the bailout had not been a loan, but an investment.
This was not a debt that could be paid back. Like a restaurant owner who borrows money from a mobster, the GSEs found themselves in an unseverable relationship.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

New Deposition Testimony Cuts The Legs Out From Under The 2012 Net Worth Sweep

New Deposition Testimony Cuts The Legs Out From Under The 2012 Net Worth Sweep


Don't let the truth get in the way of a good cover up!


The deposition of Susan McFarland, who had served as the CFO of Fannie Mae testified that on August 9, 2012, eight days before the net worth sweep, she informed high-level officials at Treasury that Fannie was, in fact, “now in a sustainable profitability, that we would be able to deliver sustainable profits over time.” Those are not the words of impending insolvency, and they were made to and known by Treasury three days before it did the sweep. How can Treasury officials claim that they had no knowledge of the bright prospects of Fannie and Freddie when they had this information in hand.

Documents Undercut U.S. Case for Taking Mortgage Giant Fannie Mae’s Profits

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/business/fannie-mae-suit-bailout.html

Documents Undercut U.S. Case for Taking Mortgage Giant Fannie Mae’s Profits

Bove On Fannie Mae News – This Is Truly an Outrage

Bove On Fannie Mae News – This Is Truly an Outrage



2. The depositions make clear that the government knew that Fannie Mae did not have to make cash payments on its senior preferred issue but that it could make a payment in kind or in stock. When the government forced the net profit sweep on the company it stated that the company did not have the cash to make the payment on the dividend. This was not a requirement of the preferred and the government knew it.

3. At the time, the Treasury forced the company into the net profit sweep it was evident that management of the company did not agree. The reason is that it had just shown the Treasury that it would be profitable for the next 10 years; that it was about to get $50 billion in equity by reversing its deferred tax asset arrangement; and that it was about to start collecting refunds from banks on bad loans. It had the money to make the payment the government claims it could not make.

4. Despite having been told that Fannie Mae was going to have its deferred tax asset returned to the company (the $50 billion mentioned) a Treasury official signed an affidavit stating that it had no such knowledge.

5. The decision rendered in the case before Judge Royce Lamberth was made without the benefit of having any of this information. The Judge simply did not want to know so he would not even listen to the lawyers making presentation in his court. His decision was rendered with no knowledge of the facts and no contact with the disputants in the case.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Big banks retreating from home loan business

Big banks retreating from home loan business


Whos going to make the loans from their private pockets? Nobody. Fannie Mae is backing the likes of Quicken Loans. Quicken loans is the new Country wide except one key part, They are good fixed rate mortgages with 30 year terms being sold to Fannie and Freddie instead of to the Private mortgage market as they were in 2006! Fannie makes sure America does not get the screws again. 
In 2006 Fannie Mae and Freddie were about 40% of the MBS market, PLS was 60%.
In 2016 Fannie Mae and Freddie are about 97% of the MBS market and PLS is 3%.
Congress would have to hand MBS to banks on a silver platter in the biggest Giveaway EVER by Jan 2018 to close Fannie and Freddie! THEN WHAT? Regulate the banks more? They wont be doing any Affordable housing schemes that congress loves so much. WHY? because America needs Affordable Housing! It really is that simple. At some point the tune needs changed by Dems and Republicans in the Congress.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

VIEW POOR DUDE'S COMMENTS Fannie Mae

http://seekingalpha.com/user/326415/comments/4
Fannie and Freddie have no more of an implicit government guarantee than does any other large corporation in America. All their mortgage securities very explicitly and clearly state that they are NOT securities of the United States of America and ARE NOT guaranteed by the US Government.

Where this idea of them carrying an "implicit" guarantee comes from, I haven't a clue. Unless it's tied to the "implicit" guarantee the US Government makes on all financial institutions and other large corporations based in America (namely, that the government is going to do its best to keep the US economy from entirely collapsing and the US Dollar from becoming totally worthless - so it's probably as safe or safer to invest in America and American-based institutions as it is anywhere else in the world).

In THAT sense, I guess you could say that Fannie and Freddie securities carry the "implicit" backing of the US government. But so do the securities of every other large corporation and "Systemically Important Financial Institution". And so did the automotive industry back in 2009, and AIG, and so on and so on and so on. If you are large and critical to the US economy, you carry an "implicit" guarantee from the US government. At least the company itself does, even if that guarantee doesn't extend to the individual investors and/or bondholders (which many learned the hard way in 2008/2009).

And with that being the case, I find it difficult to accept your argument that the Government is righfully entitled to as much as 95% of the profits of private corporations (whether publicly traded or not) because of that "implicit" guarantee. That boat might float in Russia or Venezuela, but it doesn't here in America. At least, I HOPE not!

In fact, it sounds remarkably Hillary-esque. I heard her argue that no corporation or company could exist or succeed if the government didn't first provide (or contribute to) roads, bridges, electricity, and other infrastructure. Using your (and her) argument, the government is entitled to 100% of EVERYTHING - less any amount they deem reasonable to share with the privately-built and owned corporations.

To me, that's just plain scary thinking!

After 7 Years of FHFA running Fannie Mae, Can Fannie Mae still be bad? seems impossible.

How can FHFA and POTUS still think Fannie is bad? 
Who is responsible for over 7 years for Fannie mae! They are!
They have run the companies, and for a downfall by banks that lasted 1.5 years, in 7 years they still blame fannie mae? They fired everyone, They put their people in charge. They Take all the profits. There are ZERO losses. How can Fannie be bad, if that is the case, FHFA is bad too. We know they dont think that. 
The public losses they talk about, never happened.
THe stockholders getting rich, certainly is not happening. So if Fannie is bad after 7 years, Then FHFA and the government is bad managers.
If a mcdonalds was taken over and new managers were put in, 7 years later they could not blame the old staff! They could only blame themselves. and for what would they blame, Making the biggest profit out of all bailouts? 
Blame for all profits? And its not a viable business, CLOSE that profitable mcdonalds! give it to burger king. 
But burgerking(banks) caused the mess. EHH... we dont care! Our pockets are fat now, we are your politicians!. anyway its a joke to pretend a profitable corporation is useless and BAD somehow. Fannie has never lost a lawsuit to the bank, but banks lost over 20 to fannie! Who's the bad guys? Banks.

I think its clear what im saying, The government (politicians) are blaming fannie mae for profits that have funded the government, and for profits that Fannie would of made with or without FHFA. 
The most important thing is how can a company be bad that YOU the government have FULL control over for over 7 years? How can their current profits be bad? FHFA determined the profit level by setting Gfee.
How is Fannie bad when the government fired EVERYONE in charge and put its own people in 7 years ago.
How can Fannie be bad when IT IS THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN! Banks all ran for the hills 7 years ago. 
The government could not force a bank to lend in a downturn! they would not, it would push their balance sheets more negative and certainly push them over the bankruptcy edge. So they would not lend! 
Fannie kept lending, as a matter of fact they increased lending before and after the TAKEOVER! 
The banks ran from mortgages before 2008 and would never lend in that environment!
So again How is fannie bad if the government controlling it is not bad too?
Todays fannie is not 2008 fannie. Not even close, they have a regulator FHFA and HERA that govern them now. FOR LAST 7 YEARS! 
So explain how todays Fannie mae is bad?

Monday, January 4, 2016

The big short! And the big lie.

In June 2008, just before the crisis, more than half of all U.S. mortgages — 31 million loans — were subprime or otherwise risky. Of these, 76 percent were on the books of government agencies, primarily the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This shows, without question, that the government — a sophisticated buyer — created the demand for these deficient loans.
UM… NO! Ill write it properly..
In June 2008, just before the crisis, more than half of all U.S. mortgages — 31 million loans — were subprime or otherwise risky. Of these, 76 percent were on the books of Banks and sold as Private MBS to Fannie as Senior securities(aka risk sharing by PMBS market), primarily the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This shows, without question, that the government — a sophisticated buyer — that there was supply by banks being sold for these deficient loans and Fraudulently represented as AAA securities.
Senior tranches of PMBS were just like risk sharing in 2015 by fannie, 80% is guaranteed 20% is you go bust but may make more money if the loans are good in interest payments. Fannie only bought the Senior guaranteed 80% of PMBS. So when Hank Paulson says Fannie bought subprime, this is what he was referring to. It is a lie that they bought the crap knowing it was crap. It is the seller (banks) that lied about the wholesomeness of the AAA rated securities! The law suits by the FHFA against the banks prove this as FACT!
There its truthful and factual now.

Fannie And Freddie Have Made $15B/annum Combined Since Conservatorship Started

Fannie And Freddie Have Made $15B/annum Combined Since Conservatorship Started