Archive for the ‘Freddie Mac’ Category
Get Ready For More Bank Threats
July 13th, 2010 | 
Author:
Be prepared for a new round of “tanks in the streets if you don’t cut that crap out!“
The Federal Housing Finance Agency on Monday said it had issued 64 subpoenas to unnamed firms in an effort to uncover misleading statements that Wall Street banks and others may have made when they bought and packaged risky mortgages into securities. Fannie and Freddie were two of the largest investors in those securities.
And why would the FHFA have to issue subpoenas? I mean, couldn’t Fannie and Freddie just ask for the data they wanted?
The FHFA said that it had opted to issue the subpoenas after being rebuffed in earlier efforts to collect loan files.
Oh, I see. The banks were asked, and replied:
Well now why would they do something like that? You don’t think there might be something to hide, do you?
Like, perhaps, that they didn’t have good recordable titles? That they had endorsements-in-blank and thus couldn’t record them? That they either knew or had every reason to believe that the claimed levels of income and/or assets didn’t exist? That the appraisals were doctored?
Naw, none of that stuff happened, right? There weren’t any straw buyers, there weren’t any second-home riders executed on investment properties, why there wasn’t any fraud at all that was perpetrated during these years and then sold off to Fannie and Freddie, pocketing a spread and (attempting to) stick the taxpayer with a few hundred billion in losses, right?
This ought to get good.
Posted in Banks, Corruption, Economic Crisis, FHLB, Fannie Mae, Federal Home Loan Bank, Financial System, Fraud, Freddie Mac | 
Comments Closed
CNBC’s Rick Santelli Rips Key Democrat For Ignoring Fannie/Freddie Reform
CNBC’s Rick Santelli Rips Key Democrat For Ignoring Fannie/Freddie Reform
Dems’ Financial “Reform” Leaves Taxpayers on the Hook for Government Mortgage Giants
Democrats still don’t get it, and they refuse to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government mortgage companies that sparked the meltdown by giving high-risk loans to people who couldn’t afford it. Standing up for American taxpayers, CNBC’s on-air editor, Rick Santelli teed off on Rep. Paul Kanjorski’s (D-PA) claim that Democrats’ couldn’t reform Fannie & Freddie in their financial regulation bill because it was “too complicated,” asking: “It’s too complicated? You think taxpayers that go to work to pay the money you are subsidizing, it will end up a half a trillion, do you think they think complicated is an excuse?”
The exchange couldn’t have come at a worse time for Rep. Kanjorski and Congressional Democrats, because Fannie and Freddie simply won’t go away. As the Financial Times reported today:
“Fannie Mae said on Monday it would need an additional $8.4bn in aid, as the US government-controlled mortgage finance company continued to suffer heavy losses on its bad loans…Fannie Mae’s appeal for help comes on the heels of a similar plea last week by smaller rival Freddie Mac, which asked for an additional $10.6bn cash infusion. The latest requests for aid bring the total amount of taxpayer dollars drawn down by these companies to $148bn since the 2008 government-led bail-out.
.”
But the unlimited bailout that the Administration has bestowed on Fannie and Freddie doesn’t seem to bother Democrats, though the latest giveaway may come at an “inconvenient time,” as the New York Times noted today:
“Fannie Mae’s request on Monday for another $8.4 billion in federal aid comes at a politically inconvenient time for the Obama administration, which is pressing to pass sweeping financial legislation without resolving the company’s future…. Democrats want to defer an overhaul of federal housing policy until next year, after the midterm elections. But Republicans have seized on the continuing losses to argue that a plan for the two companies should be a priority of the current legislation.”
Republicans have been pressing for an end to bailouts that would get the government out of the mortgage business once and for all. But Democrats are not only unwilling to reform Fannie and Freddie, they are doubling down on the failed government mortgage companies – burning through hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in the process. As the Washington Post noted in a report today: “Under the terms of the government’s 2008 emergency takeover of Fannie and Freddie, the Treasury must pump money into either firm whenever its worth, as measured by assets minus liabilities, goes into the red. Late last year, the Obama administration pledged unlimited backing.”
For years, Republicans raised red flags about Fannie and Freddie’s financial condition and proposed responsible reforms only to be thwarted by Democrats who have deep political ties to the worst offenders. These same powerful Democrats are now pushing for a financial reform bill that doesn’t even address the need to fix these government mortgage companies. As the Wall Street Journal wrote last week, “reforming the financial system without fixing Fannie and Freddie is like declaring a war on terror and ignoring al Qaeda.”
House Republicans’ plan would phase out taxpayer subsidies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a number of years and end the current model of privatized profits and taxpayer losses. Find out more by clicking HERE.
Posted in Corruption, Economic Crisis, Fannie Mae, Financial System, Fraud, Freddie Mac, Government, financial reform |
Comments Closed
A Blast From The Past: FedUpUSA’s Karl Denninger on Glenn Beck
Posted in Corruption, Economic Crisis, Economy, Fannie Mae, Financial System, Freddie Mac |
Comments Closed
Kaaaaaaaa…… BOOM! (Fannie/Freddie)
Kaaaaaaaa…… BOOM! (Fannie/Freddie)
Posted by Karl Denninger
March 5 (Bloomberg) — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bondholders shouldn’t assume the government will make them whole on their investments as Congress retools the companies, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.
Heh, who’s the biggest individual bondholder?
Mr. Bernanke, the bond market is on line #1!
Frank continues:
A “whole range” of options is being considered for investors in the two government-seized companies, “from paying nothing to a haircut to whatever,” said Frank, whose committee oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Nothing? You mean zero, zilch, bupkis?
That would be rich. After Bernanke stepped in and bought some $200 billion of their debt, to have it “marked to zero” would be the ultimate slap in The Fed’s face for buying that which I have argued is impermissible under the law.
What an elegant solution to a difficult problem - “oops – tear ‘em up jackass – you should have known better than to buy something that you weren’t allowed to and was patently worthless!”
The irony of that outcome would be delicious. Yes, I know I’m dreaming here – or am I?
“Please don’t think this is federally guaranteed, I don’t think it is, I don’t think it should be, I don’t feel any obligation to bail you out,” Frank said. Congress will “certainly not” extend any new protections to bond and mortgage-security investors beyond what exists, Frank said.
Oh. You mean that the face of those prospectuses mean what they say? You mean this is real?
Uh, the market is kinda ignoring that right now, isn’t it?
Yes, I think it is.
How about this for a clear statement?
“We’re not remaking Fannie and Freddie,” Frank said. “We’re going to start from scratch and do housing finance.”
Go ahead folks, keep buying. This is spelled “opportunity”, thank you very much. Now please excuse me while I go put a few chips on “red.”
PS: Why are these stocks still listed again?
Posted in Corruption, Economic Crisis, Economy, Fannie Mae, Federal Reserve, Financial System, Freddie Mac |
Comments Closed
The Biggest Financial Deception of the Decade
The Biggest Financial Deception of the Decade
By Jeff Clark
01/12/10 Stowe, Vermont – Enron? Bear Stearns? Bernie Madoff? They’re all big stories about big losses and have hurt a lot of employees and investors. But none come close to getting my vote for the decade’s most dastardly deception…
First came Enron, with $65.5 billion in assets, going belly-up and becoming the largest bankruptcy in US history at that time. The stock went from a high of $84.63 in December 2000 to a whopping 26¢ one year later. And what had we been told by the media? Fortune magazine dubbed Enron “America’s Most Innovative Company” for six consecutive years.
Next came WorldCom filing for bankruptcy in 2002, their assets of $103.9 billion dwarfing Enron’s. Tyco, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems…also made headlines for their acts of fraud and mismanagement.
A few years later, Bear Stearns set us all up for the Big Meltdown of 2008. It was B.S. (no, I mean Bear Stearns) that pioneered the asset-backed securities markets, and we all know how that turned out. Later we learned that as losses mounted in 2006 and 2007, the company was actually adding to its exposure of mortgage-backed assets. With net equity of $11.1 billion supporting $395 billion in assets, Bear leveraged itself up to an astonishing 35-to-1.
And during it all, Bear Stearns was recognized as the “Most Admired” securities firm in a survey by Fortune magazine (there’s that Lower Manhattan tabloid darling again). Frequent sightings of company executives on country club fairways assured the public that all was well. And CEO Alan Schwartz told us there was “no liquidity crisis for the firm” and insisted he “had the numbers to back it up.” His company was sold four days later to JPMorgan Chase at $10 per share, a 92% loss from its $133.20 high.
Lehman Brothers, the 158-year-old investment bank, was next and still today holds the title as the largest bankruptcy in US history. L.B. succumbed to 2007’s Word of the Year, “subprime,” and its $600 billion in assets all went poof! In just the first half of 2008, before the meltdown, Lehman’s stock slid 73%.
And what did CEO Dick Fuld tell us in April of that year? “I will hurt the shorts, and that is my goal.” He must have been referring to the attire of his tennis club buddies, because the ones who actually got hurt were numerous other banks, money market funds, institutions, hedge funds, REITs, brokers, private and public trusts, foundations, government agencies, foreign governments, employees, and investors.
Moving on to the largest US government bailout recipient by far, AIG’s troubles spawned my favorite placard of the decade: seen outside their Manhattan offices stood a sign that simply read, “Jump!” Maybe its creator heard what I did from AIG’s financial products head Joseph Cassano: “It is hard for us, without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing one dollar in any of these [credit default swap] transactions.”
Oops!
Topping off our list of the infamous debacles of the decade is Bernie Made-off (er, Madoff), who scammed $65 billion over 20 years from unsuspecting institutions and wealthy investors…
By now you are probably wondering… What’s bigger than all these debacles? He’s covered the major frauds and scams of the past decade – what could possibly be left?
To quote my favorite sleuth, Hercule Poirot, “When all the facts are laid before me, the solution becomes inevitable.”
Here are a few clues…
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on July 16, 2008, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are “adequately capitalized” and “in no danger of failing.” Then-Secretary Treasurer Henry Paulson declared on August 10, 2008, “We have no plans to insert money into either of those two institutions.”
– Both Fannie and Freddie were nationalized 28 days later, on September 8, 2008.
Ben Bernanke claimed on February 28, 2008, “Among the largest banks, the capital ratios remain good and I don’t expect any serious problems of that sort among the large, internationally active banks…” Henry Paulson added on July 20, 2008, that “It’s a safe banking system, a sound banking system. Our regulators are on top of it. This is a very manageable situation.”
– Since the recession started in December, 2008, 144 banks have failed.
Paulson informed us on April 20, 2007, that “All the signs I look at show the housing market is at or near the bottom.”
– The number of foreclosures skyrocketed shortly thereafter and will now any day surpass those during the Great Depression.
Ben Bernanke announced on June 20, 2007, that “[The sub prime fallout] will not affect the economy overall.”
– Less than one year later, the stock market crashed, losing 53% of its value, and is still down 25% despite one of the biggest bounces in history.
Those in charge of our country’s finances not only failed to see the crises developing and then bungled the handling of the recovery, they’ve deliberately misled us about what they’re doing to our currency. In spite of emphatic promises, flowery speeches, pat-on-the-back assurances, and continual reassurances, here’s what they’ve actually done to the dollar:
- Since September 1, 2008, the monetary base has ballooned from $908 billion to $2.0 trillion. The current monetary base is now equal to bailing out General Motors 23 times.
- Bailout funds in 2008 and 2009 total $8.1 trillion. That’s almost 78 WorldComs. It’s over 123 Enrons.
- US debt has risen sharply, from $6.2 trillion in 2002 to $12.1 trillion today. That’s over $39,000 per citizen.
- David Walker, the comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office from 1998-2008, warned that the US is on the hook for $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Independent analysts peg the figure at near twice that. Whatever the number, it is incomprehensibly large. The only way we will meet these liabilities is to print the money and inflate them away.
We’re bailing out corporations that should fail, making financial promises we can’t keep, and adding layers of debt we can’t possibly repay. And the real killer is, if we don’t have the cash, we just print it. It is, by any reasonable account, the “blunder that will plunder” the next several generations. It is changing America permanently, and the problems will persist long after you and I are laid to rest.
Bottom line: after all the bailout programs, housing initiatives, rescue efforts, stimulus schemes, bank takeovers, wars, unemployment benefit extensions, and numerous other promises, the biggest financial deception of the decade is what the US government is doing to the dollar. Nothing else even comes close.
This reckless activity has spooked our foreign creditors, weakened our global standing, diluted our currency, is punishing savers and retirees, and ultimately sets us up for a level of inflation this country has never seen before.
Yet, what is the guardian of our economy and money telling us now?
“Will the Federal Reserve’s actions to combat the crisis lead to higher inflation down the road? The answer is no; the Federal Reserve is committed to keeping inflation low and will be able to do so. In the near term, elevated unemployment and stable inflation expectations should keep inflation subdued, and indeed, inflation could move lower from here.” (Ben Bernanke, December 7, 2009).
This is pure rubbish. If inflation could be controlled by just thinking stable inflation thoughts, then Ben should be able to grow a full head of hair by just thinking scalp follicle thoughts. This is so ridiculous, it’s insulting.
Government actions make a mockery of their words; what they say and what they do are diametrically opposed. It’s clear that inflation is not a question of “if,” but “when.”
Any level-headed individual has to conclude that there will be a steady – and likely accelerating – decline in the dollar’s purchasing power. It’s inevitable.
The great masses don’t quite understand it yet, but they will. There will be no escape from the cold, hard slap in the face citizens will receive when a high level of inflation arrives. And when it does, it will make a mockery of any opposing viewpoint.
So the question before you is simple: Will you be a prepared survivor for what lies ahead, despite what our government leaders tell us, or will you be a complacent victim of the biggest financial deception of the decade?
For me, there’s only one solution. Don’t kid yourself into thinking a man-made asset will protect your purchasing power. This is the time to be overweight gold and silver. I advise letting them serve their purpose for you.
Regards,
Jeff Clark
for The Daily Reckoning
Posted in AIG, Banking System, Banking industry, Bear Stearns, Corruption, Economic Crisis, Economy, Fannie Mae, Federal Reserve, Financial System, Fraud, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, banking fraud |
Comments Closed
Federal Reserve earned $45 billion in 2009
Federal Reserve earned $45 billion in 2009
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wall Street firms aren’t the only banks that had a banner year. The Federal Reserve made record profits in 2009, as its unconventional efforts to prop up the economy created a windfall for the government.
The Fed will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009, according to calculations by The Washington Post based on public documents. That reflects the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury.
The numbers are good news for the federal budget and a sign that the Fed has been successful, at least so far, in protecting taxpayers as it intervenes in the economy — though there remains a risk of significant losses in the future if the Fed sells some of its investments or loses money on its stakes in bailed-out firms.
This turn of events comes as the banks that benefited from the Fed’s actions are under the microscope. Starting at the end of the week, major banks are expected to announce significant earnings and employee bonuses. Anger in Washington is at such a high boil that the Obama administration will probably propose a fee on financial firms to recoup the cost of their bailout, officials confirmed Monday.
As it happens, the Fed’s earnings for the year will dwarf those of the large banks, easily topping the expected profits of Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase combined.
Much of the higher earnings came about because of the Fed’s aggressive program of buying bonds, aiming to push interest rates down across the economy and thus stimulate growth. By the end of 2009, the Fed owned $1.8 trillion in U.S. government debt and mortgage-related securities, up from $497 billion a year earlier. The interest income on those investments was a major source of Fed profits — though that income comes with risks, as the central bank could lose money if it later sells those securities to reduce the money supply.
The Fed also made money on its emergency loans to banks and other firms and on special programs to prop up lending, such as one that supports credit cards, auto loans, and other consumer and business lending. Those programs impose interest and fees on participants, with the aim of ensuring that the Fed does not lose money.
And while the central bank in its most recent financial report had recorded a $3.8 billion decline in the value of loans it made in bailing out the investment bank Bear Stearns and the insurer American International Group, the Fed also logged $4.7 billion in interest payments from those loans. Further losses — or gains — on the two bailouts are possible as time goes by. The Fed also charges fees for operating the plumbing of the financial system, such as clearing checks and electronic payments between banks.
From its revenue, the Fed deducts operating expenses, such as employee salaries, then returns to the Treasury almost all of the earnings that remain. The largest previous refund to the Treasury was $34.6 billion, in 2007.
“This shows that central banking is a great business to be in, especially in a crisis,” said Vincent Reinhart, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Fed official. “You buy assets that have a nice yield, and your cost of funds is very low. The difference is profit.”
The Fed plans to release its estimate of 2009 earnings Tuesday. The Post’s calculation is based on combining data through September from the Fed’s monthly balance sheet report with more recent data from the Treasury’s daily budget statement.
Fed officials do not make policy with an eye toward maximizing profits. They are charged by law with managing the nation’s money supply to keep employment high and prices stable, and earnings fluctuate depending on a wide range of factors as they pursue that goal. In the crisis, the central bank’s policy has been to create money and use it to buy a wide variety of assets, which in turn pay interest.
In effect, the unprecedented range of actions taken to address the crisis has made the Fed’s balance sheet more like that of a private bank. A firm such as Bank of America takes money from depositors, whom it pays little or nothing in interest, and lends it out at significantly higher rates. The Fed, similarly, takes money that banks keep on deposit, at a rate of 0.25 percent, and lends it to the U.S. government by buying Treasury securities and, lately, to home buyers and other private borrowers though more exotic investments.
While that resulted in higher earnings in 2009, it exposes the Fed to more risks down the road. “They’ve moved up the risk-return curve, as they have more long-term assets and more things that involve credit risk,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial.
If the price of Treasury bonds or mortgage-related securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were to fall in the years ahead, and Fed leaders decided they need to drain money from the financial system by selling off some of their portfolio, the central bank would lose money. “If they do enough asset sales and rates go high enough, that could eat into future profits pretty substantially,” said Michael Feroli, an economist at J.P. Morgan Chase.
Even as the Fed comes to resemble private banks in terms of its balance sheet and its earnings power, there remains one big difference. The CEO of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, received a modest cost-of-living raise for 2010, despite the record earnings: He now makes $199,700, with no bonus at all.
