We buy freddies fat fanny

[Sammy Jankis]

Freddie Mac has private shareholders. That means it's not exactly a government entity. It means what I already said, profits are private but now that they've fucked up, we're all getting nailed. Utter bullcrap.

 

[uscitizen]

Freddie Mac has private shareholders. That means it's not exactly a government entity. It means what I already said, profits are private but now that they've fucked up, we're all getting nailed. Utter bullcrap.

Just another way for businesses to externalze costs onto the back of the taxpayers.

 

[uscitizen]

Who organized (started) the companies?--and made the decisions to allow easier lending for minorities? Yiour private bank would not do that son--they knew it was risky--so they mad sure that if they used fanny or freddy to make a long to a person who might not be able to afford it--they woiuld use freddy or fanny paper work and give them the responsibility. Our banks wanted nothing to do with the lending practice.

By the way--do you have a list of the shareholders? Who are they? Which politicians are they?


The CEO is the federal government.

Idiot, the CEO's just got booted out. And they are listed on the stock exchange I do believe for anyone to buy or sell.

As was said the pirvate part made the money and we pay the bill on it.

 

[theMAJORITY]

Freddie Mac has private shareholders. That means it's not exactly a government entity. It means what I already said, profits are private but now that they've fucked up, we're all getting nailed. Utter bullcrap.

Savage just named a few of them. They don't seem to private to me. Lobbiests and politicians.

Good point on profits and failure casualties of private citizens.

 

[theMAJORITY]

Idiot, the CEO's just got booted out. And they are listed on the stock exchange I do believe for anyone to buy or sell.

As was said the pirvate part made the money and we pay the bill on it.

it was speculation (which is still probably correct if you disagree)---and I can admitt it.

Now--you don't want me to start calling you names again--do you? I have already proved your a idiot about three times the last two days--and I have government education man!!!

 

[Cancel3]

Has anyone bothered to look at the results if we had simply allowed freddie and fannie to fail?

The damage to our economy would be huge. While our taxes are going to pay the bailout, it would have cost us all much more if the feds HADN't bailed them out.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Has anyone bothered to look at the results if we had simply allowed freddie and fannie to fail?

The damage to our economy would be huge. While our taxes are going to pay the bailout, it would have cost us all much more if the feds HADN't bailed them out.

But don't say you're for free markets anymore. We should let it fail to teach these assholes a lesson. We would recover as a nation. Fear monger much?

 

[Cancel3]

But don't say you're for free markets anymore. We should let it fail to teach these assholes a lesson. We would recover as a nation. Fear monger much?

So we bankrupt hundreds of thousands of people to teach them a lesson?

That is ridiculous.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

So we bankrupt hundreds of thousands of people to teach them a lesson?

That is ridiculous.

No it's not. Maybe people should lose faith in a system run by fascists. It would be a good lesson for all. ANd housing prices would be low enough for a whole new class of people to afford them. But, of course, your ideas are centered around using totalitarian power to make irrational guarantees.

 

[Cancel3]

Savage just named a few of them. They don't seem to private to me. Lobbiests and politicians.

Good point on profits and failure casualties of private citizens.

Then, as I pointed out in your other thread on this topic, Savage was either not looking or deliberately misleading you.

The largest stockholders (by a wide margin) are financial institutions and mutual fund holders.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Then, as I pointed out in your other thread on this topic, Savage was either not looking or deliberately misleading you.

The largest stockholders (by a wide margin) are financial institutions and mutual fund holders.

So what. Financial institutions manage the money of individuals and are run by individuals who get fat bonuses when the institution does well. Your observation is irrelevant.

 

[Cancel3]

So what. Financial institutions manage the money of individuals and are run by individuals who get fat bonuses when the institution does well. Your observation is irrelevant.

No it is not irrelevant. Majority was trying to make the point that the largest stockholders were PRIVATE individuals who are lobbyists and politicians. That is blatantly false.

And yes, the people who run financial institutions get fat bonuses when their institutions do well. Just like any business gives out bonuses when it does well. It usually gives the most to those who were responsible for the largest gains for the business.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

No it is not irrelevant. Majority was trying to make the point that the largest stockholders were PRIVATE individuals who are lobbyists and politicians. That is blatantly false.

All individuals are private. Even management companies manage funds of private individuals, who also don't deserve to use the power of government to screw the entire population for their own personal security.

And yes, the people who run financial institutions get fat bonuses when their institutions do well. Just like any business gives out bonuses when it does well. It usually gives the most to those who were responsible for the largest gains for the business.

DId they do well? Really?

 

[uscitizen]

Interesting article dated 2005 on Fannie Mae....

Monday, May 02, 2005
Mortgage Totals And Fannie Mae

For new readers, a basic premise of this blog is that mortgage originations peaked in 2003, and the top in home prices and sales couldn't be far behind. The latest monthly summary from Fannie Mae is a good example.

Business Volume $ in Millions
2001....615,323
2002....848,901
2003..1,423,056
2004....725,189
2005....522,560 annualized

Portfolio Purchases $ in Millions
2001....270,584
2002....370,641
2003....572,852
2004....262,647
2005....126,988 annualized

Retained Commitments $ in Millions
2001....296,498
2002....388,059
2003....489,073
2004....256,144
2005.....57,932 annualized

This last set of numbers is especially important. As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, these figures represent the "spread" between the rate the firm pays and can charge on a given group of loans. They want this number high, and as you can see, Fannie is struggling. There must be quite a bit going on behind the scenes.

Fannie lending is down a trillion dollars from 2003 levels. How can prices rise with the cash drying up? The overall numbers are similar, except that now most of the loans are subprime, which wasn't the case in 2003.

The big players are aware of this, and they know the market is doomed to fall. While they arrange for the crash the public has been left to dig into a debt situation without precedent.

http://thehousingbubble.blogspot.com/2005/05/mortgage-totals-and-fannie-mae.html


darn I was right again, unfortunately.