Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • Treasury May Stop Taking All Of Fannie And Freddie's Capital  [View article]
    Moon - Since your so concerned about this "free market" (its largely a fantasy in your head), don't feel too bad about the poor "free-market sub-prime home lenders"; finance has started to find other ways to peddle sub-prime loans: student, auto, credit card, and personal loans. There is your next financial bubble collapse.
    Feb 3, 2016. 05:32 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My Letter To Bill Ackman Regarding The GSEs  [View article]
    Why were the commons trading at much higher levels before the 2008 crises then? Was the market wrong about the value then, but right about the value now? What about the role of private capital in GSEs? Will private capital provide the necessary liquidity to the housing/finance market if current arrangement continues? What happens to the economy (20-25% depends on housing and ancillary businesses), if conservatorship continues? Will giving over FNMA/FMCC business to the big banks get the taxpayer "off the hook"? No, of course not. All the big financial institutions TBTF banks and GSEs are inextricably dependent on each other. And, they all have an "implicit" guarantee by the taxpayer. We saw $13 trillion handed over to the TBTF since 2008 to make them "solvent". FNMA/FMCC according to some, never needed a bailout in the first place. I think it is coming more apparent that the TBTF banks want to take over the GSEs. That is why you have shills like John Carney writing his bull*hit in the WSJ.

    Let's not forget what the purpose of GSEs are in general:

    "A government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) is a financial services corporation created by the United States Congress. Their intended function is to enhance the flow of credit to targeted sectors of the economy and to make those segments of the capital market more efficient and transparent, and to reduce the risk to investors and other suppliers of capital. The desired effect of the GSEs is to enhance the availability and reduce the cost of credit to the targeted borrowing sectors primarily by reducing the risk of capital losses to investors: agriculture, home finance and education." (Wikipedia)

    From a private investor standpoint, I am taking the risk when I buy GSE stock (because the PPS could go down), but at the same time providing affordability for homeownership. No? Also, if the whole economy goes into a recession/depression I will be bailing out the TBTF banks via of higher taxes on the debt in the future. Private investors have suffered long enough under the current arrangements IMO. At the end of the day, we are "taxpayers" too. The government could cash out big and in addition could collect billions of dollars on capital gains when investors sell their shares to pay for other investments, house and car purchases, college tuitions, etc. Releasing the GSEs are the common sense thing to do.
    Sep 7, 2015. 03:34 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Federal Reserve Has Their Own Motives On Fannie And Freddie  [View article]
    @Caludio. Exactly. I posted an article below written by Ellen Brown: http://bit.ly/15lXll3

    It mentions the FED back in 2008 buying majority of AIG on needless to say, very beneficial terms. Now I understand why AIG is in litigation over the buyout terms.

    The FED (i.e., banks like CITI and JPMORGAN) want to buy up FNMA/FMCC business, and assuming they want to do it on very favorable terms for themselves, while screwing current shareholders.
    Mar 28, 2015. 09:59 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Federal Reserve Has Their Own Motives On Fannie And Freddie  [View article]
    Actually, I would like to see the Federal Reserve itself wound down. The US govt doesn't need to borrow money from a private cartel such as the Fed. Who owns the FED?
    Mar 27, 2015. 09:02 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fannie Mae: A Primer To Senior Preferred Shares And Warrants  [View article]
    Seems clear as day to me Zach. Unless of course, as PoorDude suggests that paragraph 5.3 "was subsequently deleted or modified in one of the later Amendments". How could you not see the implication of paragraph 5.3 if it current as stated above?
    Oct 31, 2014. 07:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fannie Mae: A Primer To Senior Preferred Shares And Warrants  [View article]
    Excellent article. I think Ralph Nadar echoes the sentiments of Mr. Theodore B. Olsen when he commented in interviews concerning shareholder's rights, that the government ensured investors that FNMA and FMCC were solvent before they put it under conservatorship. Is their a legal document for this promise by the government. To me, this is one of the more egregious actions by the government.
    Oct 31, 2014. 07:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fannie Mae: John Carney's Massachusetts Decision Supports The Shareholders  [View article]
    Good summary David. Always thought that is was a simple case for the courts to decide when evaluating the laws of Conservatorship. Is the FHFA actions consistent with conservatorship? If so, what is the reasonable time frame for release of conservatorship, when an institution has been restored to health? If FHFA is actually an independent institution (separate from taking orders from Treasury), then doesn't it have the authority alone for release? Sorry, if these questions and my understanding seem naive, but I think it should be a strait forward issue for courts to decide. IMO, this is not too complicated of a case, and "tortured legalisms" should largely be left out of the remaining judicial proceedings.
    Oct 23, 2014. 12:16 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fannie And Freddie: It Was Never An Issue Of Solvency  [View article]
    Thanks David. I am getting a good education through your analysis---even though I still have a lot to learn. Check out this Investors Unite meeting video:
    Oct 7, 2014. 04:45 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kudos To Judge Lamberth: Bubkis Hedge Fund Claims Against Freddie/Fannie Get Heave-Ho  [View article]
    Good point! Is it this simple? Government announces end of conservatorship; share of commons go to $20.00+ dollars. Govt sells it common and preferred and makes hundreds of billions of dollars. Retirees and retail investors make nice profit on their investment and spend their money buying cars, homes, college educations for their children, and other good and services, stimulating the real economy via multiplier effect. Reforms and laws are enacted to reduce the chances of a similar crises like 2008 from happening again. No? thoughts?
    Oct 5, 2014. 12:00 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kudos To Judge Lamberth: Bubkis Hedge Fund Claims Against Freddie/Fannie Get Heave-Ho  [View article]
    Also, from a historical perspective, was there ever a time in human history (save hunting and gathering societies) when mixed economies didn't exist? Markets and governments are two sides of the same coin. They depend on each other. The debate starts when we start discussing concepts as Justice, Equality, Common Good, Freedom as they apply to politics----the business of living together and making collective decisions that hopefully manifest in a just and free society where everybody has a chance in fulfilling their desires and dreams. GOVT/Big Business--banks, real estate, and mortgage industries are all to blame for financial crises. Public bails the system out, and gets a profit on its investment. Now under laws of conservatorship, FNMA and FMCC should be returned to private markets along with the necessary reforms to mitigate such risks in the future. End of story.
    Oct 5, 2014. 11:48 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Frannie Folly  [View article]
    There is no way this guy
    is a learned individual, specifically regarding FNMA/FMCC situation. Take a look at his responses to the commentary---no substance just hot emotional air. Fortunately, the commentary is much more logical, reasonable, clearer, precise, contextual, and substantive. LINUS, it would behoove you to know basic definitions of conservatorship as well as what the original public mission was for FNMA and FMCC. They are arguably the most important institutions in the US, not only for the big banks but for ordinary Americans. Your "analysis" reads like comic book---good guys versus bad guys---no, sorry it is not so Manichean as you claim it to be. This was an easy one to dismiss.
    Oct 3, 2014. 08:21 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Are Undercapitalized  [View article]
    Because the big banks own "the system" for the most part. I think Barney Frank was quoted a couple years ago saying "banks own the place" in a reference to Congress. Money begins and ends up at the banks. They just want to cannibalize FNMA/FMCC profits and have shills working hard in Congress writing bills that make no sense from a practical position.
    May 19, 2014. 12:40 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Are Undercapitalized  [View article]
    Thanks Glen for the concise and accurate article. Everybody wins if FNMA/FMCC are released from conservatorship--govt, taxpayer, shareholders, and homeowners. It is only the fairest and most reasonable course of action. Plain and simple, just follow the law, that is, conservatorship law.
    May 19, 2014. 12:35 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Reality Of L&L Energy's Hong Xing And DaPuAn Coal Washing Facilities  [View article]
    Apr 30, 2014. 01:46 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Senate Staffers 'Do The Hustle' With Fannie And Freddie Shareholders  [View article]
    Exactly Caludio, and that is what the PR campaigns from 60plus Association focus on.
    Apr 11, 2014. 02:16 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment