Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Residential mortgage losses 2006-2012, 2013 obviously Fannie had zero losses as they PAID HUGE to Treasury




2008 Fannie Mae and Freddie mac losses (true loss) NOT FHFA $188 billion LIE.
F&F lost only $10 billion in 2008, yet FHFA forced F&F to write down $100 billion in losses in 2008!
10 times the TRUE amount, the same 10 times that F&F would have to pay 10% payment on.
So FHFA decided for F&F that instead of $1 billion a year in payments on $10 b, F&F would pay $10 billion a year on $100 b! HOW in the world is this possible in America? This all in just last 3 months of 2008! Forget about 2009, thats the same tactic again! False accounting anyone?

December 18, 2015 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Nor does this provision have any effect on the court cases and settlements currently underway

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2015/12/18/CREC-2015-12-18.pdf
December 18, 2015 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S8857
SECTION 702 IN DIVISION O
Mr. BROWN. Madam President,
today I wish to discuss section 702 in
division O of the Omnibus appropriations
bill. It is a provision that would
prohibit the Treasury Department
from selling, transferring or otherwise
disposing of the senior preferred shares
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for 2
years.
In 2008, Treasury Secretary Hank
Paulson and Federal Housing Finance
Agency Director James Lockhart
placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
into conservatorship and created an
agreement that gave the Treasury Department
senior preferred shares in
both entities. Since that time, the
GSEs helped stabilize the housing market
by ensuring that families had access
to 30-year fixed-rate mortgages at
reasonable rates and lenders had access
to a functioning secondary market.
While the government was initially
forced to inject $188 billion into shoring
up these two agencies, it has since
collected $241 billion. Taxpayers have
thus earned $53 billion during the conservatorship.

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President,
will the Senator yield for a question? I
am concerned that someone could read
the provision as limiting a future administration’s
authority to end the
conservatorship after the 2-year prohibition
absent congressional action.
Does the provision prohibit a future administration
from taking any action
after January 1, 2018, if it is in the best
interest of the housing market, taxpayers
or the broader economy?
Mr. BROWN. I will say to my colleague
from New York that it does not.
That is not the effect of the language.
Any number of decisions could be made
after that date, when a new Congress
and a new President will be in place.
Nor does this provision have any effect
on the court cases and settlements currently
underway challenging the validity
of the third amendment. As the
Senator from Tennessee said yesterday,
‘‘this legislation does not prejudice’’
any of those cases.
Mr. REID. I associate myself with
the comments of the Senator from
Ohio, Mr. BROWN. If it turns out to be
in the best interest of borrowers, the
economy or to protect taxpayers, the
next administration could elect to end
the conservatorship on January 2, 2018.
This is the view of the Treasury Department
as well. I would like to submit
a letter written to me on this issue
that states that the provision binds the
Treasury only until January 1, 2018,
and has no effect after that.
The agreement for this language to
be included in the omnibus was that
the prohibition would sunset after 2
years and not create a perpetual conservatorship.
As then-Secretary
Paulson described, conservatorship was
meant to be a ‘‘time out’’ not an indefinite
state of being.
Madam President, I ask unanimous
consent that the Treasury letter be
printed in the RECORD at the conclusion
of the remarks by Senator BROWN.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I
thank the Majority Leader. The FHFA
and Treasury Department could have
placed the GSEs into receivership if
the intent was to liquidate them. The
purpose of a conservatorship is to preserve
and conserve the assets of the entities
in conservatorship until they are
in a safe and solvent condition as determined
by their regulator.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, DC, December 17, 2015.
Hon. HARRY REID,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Mr. Harry REID: I associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Ohio, Mr. BROWN. If it turns out to be in the best interest of borrowers, the economy or to protect taxpayers, the next administration could elect to end the conservatorship on January 2, 2018. This is the view of the Treasury Department as well. I would like to submit a letter written to me on this issue that states that the provision binds the Treasury only until January 1, 2018, and has no effect after that.

The agreement for this language to be included in the omnibus was that the prohibition would sunset after 2 years and not create a perpetual con-servatorship. As then-Secretary Paulson described, conservatorship was meant to be a ‘‘time out’’ not an indefinite state of being.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Treasury letter be printed in the RECORD at the conclu- sion of the remarks by Senator BROWN.

Mr. BROWN: Madam President, I thank the Majority Leader. The FHFA and Treasury Department could have placed the GSEs into receivership if the intent was to liquidate them. The purpose of a conservatorship is to preserve and conserve the assets of the entities in conservatorship until they are in a safe and solvent condition as determined by their regulator.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, DC, December 17, 2015.

Hon. HARRY REID,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. LEADER: In response to your request for our view, the Treasury Department interprets the language of Section 702 of Division O of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, to mean that subsection (b) imposes a prohibition that is binding until January 1, 2018. It would not be binding after that date.

Sincerely,

ANNE WALL,

Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.

Monday, December 21, 2015

FHFA, Corker, THE BIG LIE! #FannieGate



There is your LIE! In plain view.
2008 F&F had 40 billion in capital, before the conservator took over.
by end of 2008, 47 billion plus the 40= 87 billion write down! actual losses in 2008 were 10 billion! Now no matter who you are why would F&F pay 10% interest on money they didnt need? Only way that happens is if the FHFA who told F&F to write down 70 billion more was in charge, NO CEO would ever take on that debt when it was not needed and then increase the liquidation preference by 70 billion, or 7 billion a year in payments to the treasury. Maybe they were just being cautious for the next quarters coming up? NO! they had a backstop of basically unlimited funds. F&F could of only took what the actual loss was for the quarter and borrowed it after the loss occurred! The FHFA had to show F&F were bad! FHFA chose to force them to write down more than the loss! F&F while in conservatorship HAD ZERO CHOICE but to do as told!. THERE is your story for the WSJ crap editor! LIARS, all of them.
truth is in the wide open! There is NO ONE telling the truth in the Media or in congress. Free Press is a lie in America, just as it is in Russia.



Where is the BANKS subprime today? gone, zero. F&F did not buy subprime mortgages or deal in them at all! fact. ONLY thing they bought were "bonds" with AAA ratings from banks! Those bonds were Fraud sold to them under a lie of good investment grade mortgages! They were not! Banks again!


Take a look at the fallout! Prime is the only mortgages F&F can deal in! The rest were your banks!
Prime loss was about 5% there is your F&F!



Agency is F&F! NON-agency is BANKS!
as you can see during the melt down of 2007, BANKS went belly up! TARP saved them. F&F were fine and had enough capital to not need a bailout at all!



F&F= Agency, how can F&F be the cause of the melt down of 2008, when its clear they had only $100 billion in MBS from banks, and banks had $700 billion in the same paper? The answer is it cant! As you can see in 2008 PLS is dead! $700 billion had to be absorbed by the system. The FHFA and Treasury pinned it on F&F when the real culprit was PLS, aka Banks.



compare 5.5% delinquency to PLS crap the banks sold to Fannie Mae as AAA rated MBS securities!



and more PLS garbage



Then you have the Department of justice in court twisting the law HERA to fit the actions of FHFA.

I would argue, the DOJ does not understand law? crazy right?.

(a) Appointment of the Agency as conservator or receiver
(2) Discretionary appointment The Agency may, at the discretion of the Director, be appointed conservator or receiver for the purpose of reorganizing, rehabilitating, or winding up the affairs of a regulated entity

(2) has NO POWER, only what (a) allows, which is an APPOINTMENT.
FHFA and Treasury have stated it is a conservatorship! Winding up affairs is not a power given in (a)(2). power is given in section
(b) Powers and duties of the Agency as conservator or receiver

No matter the wording in (a) it only gives Appointment of one or the other, NO DUTY.
DUTY is given in (b)

(2) General powers (A) Successor to regulated entity The Agency shall, as conservator or receiver, and by operation of law, immediately succeed to-- (i) all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of the regulated entity, and of any stockholder, officer, or director of such regulated entity with respect to the regulated entity and the assets of the regulated entity; and . . . (B) Operate the regulated entity The Agency may, as conservator or receiver-- (i) take over the assets of and operate the regulated entity with all the powers of the shareholders, the directors, and the officers of the regulated entity and conduct all business of the regulated entity; (ii) collect all obligations and money due the regulated entity; (iii) perform all functions of the regulated entity in the name of the regulated entity which are consistent with the appointment as conservator or receiver; (iv) preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity; and (v) provide by contract for assistance in fulfilling any function, activity, action, or duty of the Agency as conservator or receiver. …
(D) Powers as conservator
The Agency may, as conservator, take such action as may be-- (i) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition; and (ii) appropriate to carry on the business of the regulated entity and preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity.

Its only powers as conservator.

The Agency may, as conservator, take such action as may be--
(i) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent
condition; and
(ii) appropriate to carry on the business of the regulated entity
and preserve and conserve the assets and property of the
regulated entity.

DOJ says the may is a may if FHFA wants, but can do the opposite too.
no! the may is can do (i) or (ii) or a little of both. as may be!
ugg, DOJ is really twisting it!. in law may and shall are different, but shall is must do. may is must do within the framework. Not may do what FHFA wants.