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