FannieMae and FreddieMac Who?

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 30, 2010 10:49 AM GMT
    Remember the screaming that the screaming that Freddie and Fannie were the cause of the Mortgage crisis
    and that they needed to be dismantled?

    Because ................................

    THE PRIVATE SECTOR has to take care of things like this not the Government

    Banking titan Citigroup Inc. is paying $75 million to settle civil charges that it misled investors about its potential losses from subprime mortgages as the housing bust hit in 2007.
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128855370

    SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud in Structuring and Marketing of CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages
    Washington, D.C., April 16, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Goldman, Sachs & Co. and one of its vice presidents for defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages as the U.S. housing market was beginning to falter.

    http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-59.htm

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2010 11:32 AM GMT
    There several factors involved with the mortgages leading to the financial collapse in 2008:

    1) Freddie and Fannie practices, protected by the Democrats (esp Dodd, Frank, and Obama)

    2) The Democrats encouraging loans be made to people who could not afford it. Acorn was involved in intimidating banks who did not want to make bad loans

    3) Wall Street practices involving the bad mortgages, which occurred under Republican watch.

    In short, both parties have some responsibility, and this point will be hammered as the left will try again in 2010 to run against Bush, this time unsuccessfully. The point will also be made that the Democrats continue to fail to enact oversight to Freddie and Fannie.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2010 3:59 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThere several factors involved with the mortgages leading to the financial collapse in 2008:

    1) Freddie and Fannie practices, protected by the Democrats (esp Dodd, Frank, and Obama)

    2) The Democrats encouraging loans be made to people who could not afford it. Acorn was involved in intimidating banks who did not want to make bad loans


    Oh please. This is total bullshit and anyone not looking to score partisan points would have done some actual research before repeating the right-wing talking point.

    The legislation that is cited here has been in existance since 1977; it was gutted under Bush, and it didn't apply to more than half the bad loans made.

    The real problem was simply greed and a lack of regulation on the risks involved in the mortgage-based securities markets. Write a loan, take the fees, bundle it up, sell it off. All profit and no risk.

    socalfitness said
    3) Wall Street practices involving the bad mortgages, which occurred under Republican watch.

    In short, both parties have some responsibility, and this point will be hammered as the left will try again in 2010 to run against Bush, this time unsuccessfully. The point will also be made that the Democrats continue to fail to enact oversight to Freddie and Fannie.


    Right, because heaven forbid that the big money guys would let the right-wing talk about more regulation to prevent another big-profit house of cards that caused the last meltdown.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2010 4:50 PM GMT
    gregography said
    socalfitness saidThere several factors involved with the mortgages leading to the financial collapse in 2008:

    1) Freddie and Fannie practices, protected by the Democrats (esp Dodd, Frank, and Obama)

    2) The Democrats encouraging loans be made to people who could not afford it. Acorn was involved in intimidating banks who did not want to make bad loans


    Oh please. This is total bullshit and anyone not looking to score partisan points would have done some actual research before repeating the right-wing talking point.

    The legislation that is cited here has been in existance since 1977; it was gutted under Bush, and it didn't apply to more than half the bad loans made.

    The real problem was simply greed and a lack of regulation on the risks involved in the mortgage-based securities markets. Write a loan, take the fees, bundle it up, sell it off. All profit and no risk.

    socalfitness said
    3) Wall Street practices involving the bad mortgages, which occurred under Republican watch.

    In short, both parties have some responsibility, and this point will be hammered as the left will try again in 2010 to run against Bush, this time unsuccessfully. The point will also be made that the Democrats continue to fail to enact oversight to Freddie and Fannie.


    Right, because heaven forbid that the big money guys would let the right-wing talk about more regulation to prevent another big-profit house of cards that caused the last meltdown.

    Interesting when folks of your ilk disagree, they say total BS, right-wing talking point, do some research - all without offering anything substantial to back up your point. Why don't you try some research, start by Googling the terms Freddie Fannie McCain 2005.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2010 8:34 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Interesting when folks of your ilk disagree, they say total BS, right-wing talking point, do some research - all without offering anything substantial to back up your point. Why don't you try some research, start by Googling the terms Freddie Fannie McCain 2005.


    You mean the legislation that McCain didn't initially support, that right-wingers and Bush didn't like, and was killed in a republican-controlled senate committee?

    Facts, boy.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2010 8:49 PM GMT
    gregography said
    socalfitness said
    Interesting when folks of your ilk disagree, they say total BS, right-wing talking point, do some research - all without offering anything substantial to back up your point. Why don't you try some research, start by Googling the terms Freddie Fannie McCain 2005.


    You mean the legislation that McCain didn't initially support, that right-wingers and Bush didn't like, and was killed in a republican-controlled senate committee?

    Facts, boy.


    McCain supported the bill but Dodd, Frank, and Obama threatened to block.

    Dems still won't control Fannie and Freddie.

    Facts are a bitch, eh?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 30, 2010 10:40 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThere several factors involved with the mortgages leading to the financial collapse in 2008:

    1) Freddie and Fannie practices, protected by the Democrats (esp Dodd, Frank, and Obama) What and How

    2) The Democrats encouraging loans be made to people who could not afford it. Acorn was involved in intimidating banks who did not want to make bad loans WHAT??? LOL Intimidating Banks icon_rolleyes.gif What republican rock blog did you get that one from?

    3) Wall Street practices involving the bad mortgages, which occurred under Republican watch.

    In short, both parties have some responsibility, and this point will be hammered as the left will try again in 2010 to run against Bush, this time unsuccessfully. The point will also be made that the Democrats continue to fail to enact oversight to Freddie and Fannie.


    Now ..... who do you THINK allowed banks to become investment houses and investment houses to become banks???? Which allowed firms to gamble with our money like they never did before?
    and WHO do you think came up with the idea that you can cut up and bundle these mortgages and sell them out on the open market as commodities?
    I'll give you a hint Fannie and Freddie ain't them
    Keep Guessing
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2010 11:27 PM GMT
    GQjock said
    socalfitness saidThere several factors involved with the mortgages leading to the financial collapse in 2008:

    1) Freddie and Fannie practices, protected by the Democrats (esp Dodd, Frank, and Obama) What and How

    2) The Democrats encouraging loans be made to people who could not afford it. Acorn was involved in intimidating banks who did not want to make bad loans WHAT??? LOL Intimidating Banks icon_rolleyes.gif What republican rock blog did you get that one from? Was documented - Acorn got personal addresses of bank officers and demonstrated outside their houses. Real classy. Saw it on TV myself, but did not video tape it for you.

    3) Wall Street practices involving the bad mortgages, which occurred under Republican watch.

    In short, both parties have some responsibility, and this point will be hammered as the left will try again in 2010 to run against Bush, this time unsuccessfully. The point will also be made that the Democrats continue to fail to enact oversight to Freddie and Fannie.


    Now ..... who do you THINK allowed banks to become investment houses and investment houses to become banks???? Which allowed firms to gamble with our money like they never did before?
    and WHO do you think came up with the idea that you can cut up and bundle these mortgages and sell them out on the open market as commodities?
    I'll give you a hint Fannie and Freddie ain't them
    Keep Guessing

    Boy, it's really tough getting thorough. My point 3) was intended to acknowledge the points in your OP and your above message. The concept I was trying to get across was not to dispute what you said, but to point out that there were other factors involved, and ultimately both political parties have some culpability.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 31, 2010 12:39 AM GMT
    Ooooooh ......I gotcha icon_wink.gif
    So signs outside of some houses in Westchester got these guys SO unnerved that they gave away mortgages to people who couldn't afford them?

    Do You Listen to Yourself? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 1:00 AM GMT
    This is hilarious. No one pushed bad loans more than George W. Bush. Remember the "ownership society?" When not pissing his pants in a classroom, he was encouraging poor families to take on second and third jobs to buy a house.

    Bush is also the dumb ass who said "federal surplus means we've got to cut taxes." That worked out well, didn't it? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 1:51 AM GMT

    I can tell you with 100% certainty that Acorn did NOT threaten banks that refused to make bad loans. Quite the opposite. Back in 2003 and 2004 I was in the very awkward position of working for a major international banking group that owns a big US bank (formerly a major player in sub-prime mortgages). I spent a lot of time jumping up and down trying to get our head office to reign in the US bank. One of the allies we had in doing that was Acorn, who had won a lawsuit that cost the company that was to become our US subprime subsidiary something like $400m in settlement fees in 2001 for over aggressive marketing of loans to low income minority households.

    By no means do I believe that Acorn are perfect angles. But I am no doubt at all that they were raising as much Hell as they could about over-aggressive subprime lending way before it hit the headlines (and the fan!).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 2:15 AM GMT
    flieslikeabeagle said
    I can tell you with 100% certainty that Acorn did NOT threaten banks that refused to make bad loans. Quite the opposite. Back in 2003 and 2004 I was in the very awkward position of working for a major international banking group that owns a big US bank (formerly a major player in sub-prime mortgages). I spent a lot of time jumping up and down trying to get our head office to reign in the US bank. One of the allies we had in doing that was Acorn, who had won a lawsuit that cost the company that was to become our US subprime subsidiary something like $400m in settlement fees in 2001 for over aggressive marketing of loans to low income minority households.

    By no means do I believe that Acorn are perfect angles. But I am no doubt at all that they were raising as much Hell as they could about over-aggressive subprime lending way before it hit the headlines (and the fan!).

    Acorn has or had many local offices, seemingly with varying practices. I don't think you can be 100% certain about all of them. I saw one example on TV.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 2:55 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    flieslikeabeagle said
    I can tell you with 100% certainty that Acorn did NOT threaten banks that refused to make bad loans. Quite the opposite. Back in 2003 and 2004 I was in the very awkward position of working for a major international banking group that owns a big US bank (formerly a major player in sub-prime mortgages). I spent a lot of time jumping up and down trying to get our head office to reign in the US bank. One of the allies we had in doing that was Acorn, who had won a lawsuit that cost the company that was to become our US subprime subsidiary something like $400m in settlement fees in 2001 for over aggressive marketing of loans to low income minority households.

    By no means do I believe that Acorn are perfect angles. But I am no doubt at all that they were raising as much Hell as they could about over-aggressive subprime lending way before it hit the headlines (and the fan!).

    Acorn has or had many local offices, seemingly with varying practices. I don't think you can be 100% certain about all of them. I saw one example on TV.


    Was that the same show that had the "pimp" and "prostitute" "journalists" a la Andrew Brietbart?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 3:30 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    flieslikeabeagle said
    I can tell you with 100% certainty that Acorn did NOT threaten banks that refused to make bad loans. Quite the opposite. Back in 2003 and 2004 I was in the very awkward position of working for a major international banking group that owns a big US bank (formerly a major player in sub-prime mortgages). I spent a lot of time jumping up and down trying to get our head office to reign in the US bank. One of the allies we had in doing that was Acorn, who had won a lawsuit that cost the company that was to become our US subprime subsidiary something like $400m in settlement fees in 2001 for over aggressive marketing of loans to low income minority households.

    By no means do I believe that Acorn are perfect angles. But I am no doubt at all that they were raising as much Hell as they could about over-aggressive subprime lending way before it hit the headlines (and the fan!).

    Acorn has or had many local offices, seemingly with varying practices. I don't think you can be 100% certain about all of them. I saw one example on TV.


    Was that the same show that had the "pimp" and "prostitute" "journalists" a la Andrew Brietbart?

    Nope. Was one of the local TV stations, I think KABC-TV 7.