Fannie Mae Needs $1.7 Billion in New Treasury Capital 47 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
And the green shoot hits just keep on coming. If you wondered why Fannie Mae (FNM) stock has been flying, here is your answer (and which the nearly departed Lockhart seems to have known a few days in advance).
Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Fannie Mae, operating under a federal conservatorship, asked the U.S. Treasury for a $10.7 billion capital investment as its eighth straight quarterly loss once again drove the mortgage-finance company’s net worth below zero.
A second-quarter net loss of $14.8 billion, or $2.67 a share, pushed the company to request its third draw on a $200 billion lifeline from the government, Washington-based Fannie Mae said in a filing today with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The company, which posted $86.8 billion in losses over the previous seven quarters, has already taken $34.2 billion in federal aid since April.
What a shroomed up circus this economy has become.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
I'm against the War in Iraq, but Liberals are going to use what the US spends there to justify every idiotic spending proposal that comes out of this administration, even though most Democrats went along with the Iraq War (including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, etc.) Also, we don't spend anywhere NEAR a billion dollars a day in Iraq.
What does Iraq have to do with the taxpayer funneling billions more into another failed government housing program? Nothing, it's all a smokescreen because liberals don't want to have to debate their socialist programs, they'd rather talk about Bush.
On Aug 07 10:35 AM rrtzmd wrote:
> ...aw, gosh...1.7 billion dollars...what is that -- about what we
> spend in Iraq in two days?...let's see -- where would I rather throw
> money?...into a Middle Eastern cesspool or into an agency that helps
> people buy homes?...not really a hard choice for me...
the dramatic escalation in credit availability is little more than 30 years old in this country. the insane, no money down and no-doc mortgage scams pushed by everyone from financial institutions to congress iteself occurred only during the last 10-15 years. asset securitization barely existed 20 years ago. derivitives trading, created by wall street and for wall street, also about 20 years old, has become a crucial part of the profit model of every "too big to fail" financial institution...without which they'd close up shop and go home because the "services" these wall street firms provide don't serve the public...they serve only each other.
i don't give a damn if goldman sucks makes 100 billion a year speculating with its own capital. but the first time the u.s. government had to step in and back their debt and inject capital is where it should all stop. they will now and ALWAYS operate under implicit taxpayer protection. regulation will never work when the regulators are in bed with the offenders. that firm and everyone like it should be shuttered.
go figure.
On Aug 07 08:39 PM Leonard C. Tekaat wrote:
> Lately there has been some very disturbing news about Fannie Mae
> and Freddie Mac. The economy needs Fannie and Freddie. Without them
> we would not have a mortgage market. Banks and financial institutions
> sell their mortgages to them. The economy needs the housing market
> because this is how credit is supplied to small business and consumers.
> Without collateral banks will not and cannot loan money. If the price
> is going down the equity is continually decreasing.
> It has been reported, that 50 to 90 percent of housing is underwater
> with their mortgages. This means that there is no collateral to
> secure a loan. Credit is our primary means of exchange. Without
> credit money, exchanges of goods and services can not take place.
> There is not enough paper money in our economy to facilitate all
> the transactions that must take place. Economic activity is reduced;
> unemployment increases. For the economy to fully recover housing
> prices must be stabilized quickly or we will have a major problem
> on our hands. I have posted solutions to the problem on my web site
> economysflaw.wordpress...
Your 'beloved' Republican party who not long ago controlled everything in a similar way are the one's pulling their strings.
Also -- those Democrats you mentioned as supporting the Iraq war have since recanted and apologized for being duped by Bushco. Would that there were more decent Republicans who could be so honest and forthright.
On Aug 08 11:31 AM Brad Johnson wrote:
> FYI, your beloved President Obama and the Democrat Party control
> EVERYTHING right now. They could leave Iraq tomorrow.
>
> I'm against the War in Iraq, but Liberals are going to use what the
> US spends there to justify every idiotic spending proposal that comes
> out of this administration, even though most Democrats went along
> with the Iraq War (including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards,
> etc.) Also, we don't spend anywhere NEAR a billion dollars a day
> in Iraq.
>
> What does Iraq have to do with the taxpayer funneling billions more
> into another failed government housing program? Nothing, it's all
> a smokescreen because liberals don't want to have to debate their
> socialist programs, they'd rather talk about Bush.
> That's right, go back and forth. Piss and moan, whine, bitch and
> complain. It's the Republicans. Nooo, it's the Democrats. Hate
> to break it to you, but guess what. Neither party gives a sh#t about
> you except to the extent that they can extort your income and con
> you into voting for them. I learned the hard way. Obviously, some
> of you have yet to learn.
AMEN !!!
On Aug 08 01:28 PM Swashbuckler wrote:
> That's right, go back and forth. Piss and moan, whine, bitch and
> complain. It's the Republicans. Nooo, it's the Democrats. Hate to
> break it to you, but guess what. Neither party gives a sh#t about
> you except to the extent that they can extort your income and con
> you into voting for them. I learned the hard way. Obviously, some
> of you have yet to learn.
On Aug 08 03:05 PM Mark Bern wrote:
> You are so right. And if things get bad enough I'm going to lean
> out of my window and start screaming, "I'm mad as h*!! and I'm not
> going to take it anymore!" I hope you'll join me. At the very least
> it should feel pretty good.
When Liberals protest it's patriotic, when conservatives do, it's fascism.
On Aug 08 12:47 PM Bob 123 wrote:
> Liberals are trying to debate these very important issues. But then
> all these not-too-bright right wing loony rent-a-mobs show up at
> the town hall meetings, stirred up by talk-radio/Fox news lies and
> misinformation with the only intent to make meaningful debate impossible.
>
> Your 'beloved' Republican party who not long ago controlled everything
> in a similar way are the one's pulling their strings.
> Also -- those Democrats you mentioned as supporting the Iraq war
> have since recanted and apologized for being duped by Bushco. Would
> that there were more decent Republicans who could be so honest and
> forthright.
>
> On Aug 08 11:31 AM Brad Johnson wrote:
Those Democrats sure are easy to fool if Bush was able to trick so many of them!
On Aug 08 12:47 PM Bob 123 wrote:
> Also -- those Democrats you mentioned as supporting the Iraq war
> have since recanted and apologized for being duped by Bushco. Would
> that there were more decent Republicans who could be so honest and
> forthright.
>
> On Aug 08 11:31 AM Brad Johnson wrote:
Like the great majority of gub'mint programs the country would have been better served if they had taken $17.1 billion in cash and set it on fire. At least when the flames died down we'd still have the remaining $17.1 billion left.
That's a dramatic improvement over giving it all to AIG only to 'discover' that they need even more later on.
Thanks government.... I can always count on you to say one thing and then do another.
Intelligent people did the following:
They did not buy a house during the bubble.
They did not but a gas guzzling vehicle.
They do not eat unhealthy foods.
We now have subsidizes (indirect or otherwise) for:
People who idiotically bought a house during the bubble.
*subsidized buy Freddie, Fannie, low interest, first time homeowners tax break, etc. These all lead to the abandon houses around you being occupied. Subsidy.
People who were too stupid to think that a vehicle that gets 18 mpg was a bad idea.
*'cash for clunkers'.... aka 'cash for idiots' that bought ridiculous vehicles. Subsidy.
People who think eating chemical foods, smoking cigarettes, and not exercising is a good idea.
*Medicare, Medicaid, and the upcoming Obama care. Medicine for people who don't take care of themselves properly.
Conclusion: Making prudent decisions is for SUCKERS. The government subsidized idiotic behavior. This is the EXACT contrary to natural selection. Intelligent, good decision makers should be rewarded.... not punished relative to your fellow idiots. This is why entrepreneurial American are giving up their citizenship in droves. This country WILL have brain drain from the republicrats/demicrins' policies.
> The logistics would probably be kind of tough to arrange. But I think
> it's safe to say that at least you, me, and Painfully Aware are on
> the same page on this one.
Anger Is Merited When You Discern Some Of What Goes On "Behind The Curtain".
Those Who Are Not Angry Have Not Grasped The Implications. Just Because It Does Not Effect Them Now Does Not Necessarily Mean It Will Remain So.
The Number Of "Enlightened" Grows Each Day. When What Is "Reported" Does Not Match What Is "Observed", Questions Fester.
On Aug 08 12:47 PM Bob 123 wrote:
> Liberals are trying to debate these very important issues. But then
> all these not-too-bright right wing loony rent-a-mobs show up at
> the town hall meetings, stirred up by talk-radio/Fox news lies and
> misinformation with the only intent to make meaningful debate impossible.
>
> Your 'beloved' Republican party who not long ago controlled everything
> in a similar way are the one's pulling their strings.
> Also -- those Democrats you mentioned as supporting the Iraq war
> have since recanted and apologized for being duped by Bushco. Would
> that there were more decent Republicans who could be so honest and
> forthright.
>
> On Aug 08 11:31 AM Brad Johnson wrote:
On Aug 08 11:09 PM aNewEraBegins wrote:
> In hindsight......
>
> Intelligent people did the following:
>
> They did not buy a house during the bubble.
> They did not but a gas guzzling vehicle.
> They do not eat unhealthy foods.
>
> We now have subsidizes (indirect or otherwise) for:
>
> People who idiotically bought a house during the bubble.
> *subsidized buy Freddie, Fannie, low interest, first time homeowners
> tax break, etc. These all lead to the abandon houses around you being
> occupied. Subsidy.
>
> People who were too stupid to think that a vehicle that gets 18 mpg
> was a bad idea.
> *'cash for clunkers'.... aka 'cash for idiots' that bought ridiculous
> vehicles. Subsidy.
>
> People who think eating chemical foods, smoking cigarettes, and not
> exercising is a good idea.
> *Medicare, Medicaid, and the upcoming Obama care. Medicine for people
> who don't take care of themselves properly.
>
>
> Conclusion: Making prudent decisions is for SUCKERS. The government
> subsidized idiotic behavior. This is the EXACT contrary to natural
> selection. Intelligent, good decision makers should be rewarded....
> not punished relative to your fellow idiots. This is why entrepreneurial
> American are giving up their citizenship in droves. This country
> WILL have brain drain from the republicrats/demicrins' policies.
Other revisionists here forget (or deliberately ignore) that congress did not "vote for war in Iraq" -- they voted to give Bush a real threat of war, to achieve a legitimate goal, getting rid of Saddam. That Bush lied about his intentions, distorted the facts, and started an unwinnable war cannot be blamed on Democrats.
On Aug 08 11:48 PM wheelbarrelsofcash wrote:
> LMAO OK so now if people that don't agree with the current administration
> show up at town hall meetings they are called "loony right wing mobs"
> - help me out here is that straight from a page of the communist
> manifesto?
On Aug 08 12:47 PM Bob 123 wrote:
> Liberals are trying to debate these very important issues. But then
> all these not-too-bright right wing loony rent-a-mobs show up at
> the town hall meetings, stirred up by talk-radio/Fox news lies and
> misinformation with the only intent to make meaningful debate impossible.
>
> Your 'beloved' Republican party who not long ago controlled everything
> in a similar way are the one's pulling their strings.
> Also -- those Democrats you mentioned as supporting the Iraq war
> have since recanted and apologized for being duped by Bushco. Would
> that there were more decent Republicans who could be so honest and
> forthright.
>
> On Aug 08 11:31 AM Brad Johnson wrote:
On Aug 09 09:05 AM borntosue wrote:
> wheelbarrow misperceives the difference between discourse and disruption.
>
>
> Other revisionists here forget (or deliberately ignore) that congress
> did not "vote for war in Iraq" -- they voted to give Bush a real
> threat of war, to achieve a legitimate goal, getting rid of Saddam.
> That Bush lied about his intentions, distorted the facts, and started
> an unwinnable war cannot be blamed on Democrats.