PDA

**See This Page With Full Graphics, Pictures and Color!** CLICK HERE --> : Government not only bails out Freddy Fannie, but it takes control as well


abudabit
09-06-2008, 09:41 PM
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will use his authority to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, likely placing the beleaguered mortgage-finance companies under government control as early as this weekend.

The Treasury plans to put Fannie and Freddie into a so- called conservatorship and pump capital into the companies, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said in an interview after being briefed by Paulson. The government would make periodic injections of funds by buying convertible preferred shares or warrants in the companies as needed, avoiding large up- front taxpayer costs, according to a person briefed on the plan.

``This is no bailout, particularly for the shareholders,'' Frank said. The federal government ``will be senior to all shareholders, preferred and common.''

Paulson gathered with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart, Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer Daniel Mudd and Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron this weekend on a plan to take control of the government-sponsored enterprises, which have operated as private shareholder-owned corporations for almost 40 years. Paulson is seeking to halt the crisis of confidence in Fannie and Freddie following $14.9 billion in losses in the past year that boosted their borrowing costs and hampered the mortgage market.

Paulson was prompted to step in after Morgan Stanley, which had been hired to analyze the companies' financials, concluded that Freddie, and to a lesser extent Fannie, relied on accounting maneuvers to meet their capital requirements, according to people with knowledge of the findings. The accounting overstated the value of their actual reserves, the people said.

Mark Lake, a spokesman at Morgan Stanley in New York, declined to comment.

Morgan Stanley

A government takeover would be the latest attempt to blunt the impact of the yearlong credit crisis, after the Fed provided financing for Bear Stearns Cos.'s sale to JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Holders of the common and preferred stock are ``very unlikely to come out of this at all happy,'' and the chief executive officers will be forced out, Frank said. Investors in the senior and subordinated debt will be protected, according to three people briefed on the discussions.

Paulson met with Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd and Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron yesterday to tell them of the decision to put the companies into conservatorship, and remove the executives from their jobs, according to two people briefed on the plan.

Paulson consulted with Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis, according to people with knowledge of the talks. A public announcement is expected this weekend, one person said. Frank said he plans to hold a hearing next week.

Treasury Briefings

Treasury was ``convinced that the markets simply wouldn't respond until after something like this,'' Frank said in the interview. ``What they're talking about doing are two things, one is conservatorship and two, putting some money into them. I think it's an important combination.''

The Treasury briefed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama today and has contacted Republican contender John McCain's staff about its intentions. Officials have also discussed the plans with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd.

Obama and McCain gave their support for federal action to rescue Fannie and Freddie while saying steps must be taken to ensure the companies don't keep passing losses off to taxpayers.

``These entities are so big and they are so tied into the housing market that it's probably true that we have to take steps to make sure that they don't just collapse,'' Obama said today while campaigning in Terre Haute, Indiana.

Preferred Stock

Dodd said the restructuring shouldn't put ``other financial institutions at risk.''

U.S. bank and insurance companies are the biggest holders of the companies' preferred shares. The market value of Fannie's $21.73 billion in preferred stock had dropped 64 percent to $7.87 billion late last month, according to Friedman Billings & Ramsey Co. The market value of Freddie's $14.1 billion in preferred shares had fallen 61 percent to $5.44 billion.

Fannie was created by the government in 1938 and Freddie was chartered in 1970 mainly to boost the availability of home loans and provide market stability. The companies currently own or guarantee almost half of the $12 trillion in U.S. home loans.

Opening Their Wallets

The decision to rescue Fannie and Freddie follows Paulson's repeated comments to lawmakers in July that he wasn't likely to use taxpayer funds to prop up the companies. The shares of both companies have slid since Paulson won powers to inject unlimited funds in the companies, and their borrowing costs rose.

Pacific Investment Management Co., manager of the world's biggest bond fund, and other large investors may put in their own money once the Treasury decides to inject government funds, Bill Gross, co-chief investment officer at Newport Beach, California- based Pimco, said yesterday in a Bloomberg Television interview.

``They have to open their wallet,'' Gross said. About 61 percent of Gross's holdings were mortgage-backed securities as of June 30, mostly debt guaranteed by Fannie, Freddie or government agency Ginnie Mae, according to data on Pimco's Web site.

Making Progress

Washington-based Fannie and Freddie dropped in after-hours trading yesterday. Fannie fell $2.25, or 32 percent, to $4.79 at 5:50 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange trading and Freddie slumped $1.40, or 27 percent, to $3.70. Fannie is down about 66 percent since the end of June as concerns about the companies' capital grew. Freddie has fallen about 69 percent.

Fannie's market capitalization is now $7.6 billion, down from $38.9 billion at the end of last year. Freddie's has fallen to $3.3 billion, from $22 billion over the same period.

``We are making progress on our work with Morgan Stanley, FHFA and the Fed,'' Treasury spokeswoman Brookly Mclaughlin said yesterday in Washington, declining to comment on any specific plans. FHFA spokeswoman Stefanie Mullin declined to comment, as did Mark Lake at Morgan Stanley.

Bernanke participated in yesterday's meetings because the central bank was given a consultative role in overseeing Fannie's and Freddie's capital under legislation approved in July. Paulson's decision won the approval of Bernanke and Lockhart, the person briefed on the discussions said.

Shareholders' Fates

The FHFA has the authority to place Fannie or Freddie into conservatorships or receiverships under the law. The legislation that President George W. Bush signed July 30 also gave the Treasury the power through the end of next year to extend unlimited credit to or make equity purchases in the firms.

Under a conservatorship, the authorities would aim to preserve Fannie and Freddie assets, rather than dispose of them, the law says.

The FHFA was scheduled to release its assessment of the companies' capital levels as early as this week as part of a quarterly appraisal of their finances.

Analysts have speculated that the Treasury would wipe out common shareholders, while seeking to shield preferred stockowners from total loss. Fannie and Freddie preferred shares are typically owned by banks and insurance companies. Their $5.2 trillion of debt outstanding is held by investors including Asian central banks, and would probably be guaranteed, analysts said.

Expanding Ownership

Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investors Service cut the preferred stock ratings of both companies to the lowest investment-grade quality on concern a bailout may not extend to the securities. S&P reduced the rating to the lowest investment grade, citing ``uncertainty'' about whether any government bailout would extend to the securities. The senior debt, implicitly backed by the government, carries the top ratings.

``Treasury's main concern is the debt markets, and if it was to say that it will do whatever is necessary to keep Fannie and Freddie running, the better it is for their funding,'' said Alex Pollock, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and former president of the Chicago Federal Home Loan Bank.

Fannie was created in 1938 as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. With the Vietnam War pressuring the federal budget, Fannie was split from the government in 1968, and shares in the company were sold to the public. Freddie was created in 1970 to provide competition for Fannie. The companies make money by buying mortgages from banks, funding their purchases with low- cost debt, and by guaranteeing home-loan securities.

Record Spreads

The government has been leaning on the companies to help pull the economy out of a housing slump as other buyers retreat from the market, burned by more than $500 billion of losses since the collapse of the subprime-mortgage market last year.

Fannie and Freddie need to sell billions of dollars of bonds each month to pay maturing debt. As of mid-August the companies had $223 billion of debt to refinance by the end of the quarter.

While they have continued to issue securities, Fannie and Freddie have paid record yields over U.S. Treasuries to attract investors reluctant to take on the debt even with its implicit backing from the government.

Freddie sold $3 billion of two-year reference notes this week at 3.229 percent, or 97.5 basis points more than Treasuries of similar maturity, the highest since at least 1998, based on company and market data compiled by Bloomberg.

Fannie had $47 billion of capital as of June 30, according to company filings. The company is required by its regulator to hold $37.5 billion. Freddie's capital stood at $37.1 billion, compared with a requirement of $34.5 billion, filings show.

Mudd was accompanied in his meetings at FHFA yesterday by Fannie General Counsel Beth Wilkinson and Chairman Stephen Ashley. Last week, he shook up the company's management in an effort to restore investor confidence, replacing three top deputies.

Congratulations America, we're now nationalizing failed banks. Ron Paul warned against this a long time ago. What's good for Venezuela is good for America.

And before this turns into Democrat vs. Republican thing, remember that both tickets for the presidential election have a history of supporting this type of thing.

Palin protected an Alaskan state owned business from liquidating. Obama... well holy shit his whole campaign is based on using the government to steer the economy.

abudabit
09-06-2008, 09:51 PM
The historic takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which could come as soon as Sunday, moved to the forefront of the presidential campaign Saturday as candidates and congressional leaders seized on the enormous implications for taxpayers and the economy.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together hold or back half of the nation's mortgage debt, and have played an increasingly important role in the real estate market since the credit crisis started in August 2007. A government bailout could cost taxpayers around $25 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and two other regulators are working on a plan to put the troubled mortgage finance companies into a conservatorship, and remove Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd and Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron, according to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

The government is expected to control the two companies at least a year as it evaluates and debates whether Fannie and Freddie should remain government-run entities or be restructured in some fashion, Frank said in an interview.

At a rally in Colorado Springs, Col., Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said, "They've gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help."

Democratic nominee Barack Obama, speaking in Terre Haute, Ind., said, "These entities are so big and they're so tied into the housing market that it is probably true that we have to take steps to make sure they don't just collapse, because the housing market, which is already weakened, would be in even worse shape if we didn't take some steps."

News of the likely government takeover Friday followed a report by the Mortgage Bankers Association that more than 4 million American homeowners with a mortgage, a record 9 percent, were either behind on their payments or in foreclosure at the end of June.

That confirmed what investors saw in Fannie and Freddie's recent financial results: trouble in the mortgage market has shifted to homeowners who had solid credit but took out exotic loans with little or no proof of their income and assets.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lost a combined $3.1 billion between April and June. Half of their credit losses came from these types of risky loans with ballooning monthly payments.

While both companies said they had enough resources to withstand the losses, many investors believe their financial cushions could wither away as defaults and foreclosures mount.

Frank said the companies' financial picture was better than Wall Street investors assumed, but "it just plainly became clear that elements of the market wouldn't' accept that."

The epic decision highlights the size of the threats facing the housing market and the economy. On Friday, Nevada regulators shut down Silver State Bank, the 11th failure this year of a federally insured bank. And earlier this year, the government orchestrated the takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase.

"Any government action must help to strengthen our economy, which is suffering a crisis brought on by the administration's failure to stop predatory lending," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who chairs the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. "Any intervention also must minimize the cost to American taxpayers, and should not put other financial institutions at risk."

The crisis surrounding Fannie and Freddie promises to be a major challenge for the next president.

The role the two companies play in the U.S. mortgage market has grown dramatically over the past year as other lenders collapsed under the weight of bad subprime loans. The companies guaranteed about three-quarters of all new mortgages in the second quarter of this year, up from under 40 percent in 2006, according to the trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and James Lockhart, the companies' chief regulator, met Friday afternoon with the top executives from the mortgage companies and informed them of the government's plan to put the companies into a conservatorship as early as this weekend.

In July, Congress passed a plan to provide unlimited government loans to Fannie and Freddie and to purchase stock in the companies if needed. Critics say the open-ended nature of the rescue package could expose taxpayers to billions of dollars of potential losses.

Fannie Mae was created by the government in 1938, and was turned into a public company 30 years later. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 to provide competition for Fannie.

There you have it. BOTH sets of candidates are supporting tax payer bail outs of bad debt. Neither has suggested we eliminate this failed institution.

weeniewawa
09-06-2008, 09:51 PM
whats next, are they going to take over the post office? OH yea, they already own that too

abudabit
09-06-2008, 09:56 PM
A government bailout could cost taxpayers around $25 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

And yet where is the allegedly fiscally conservative party's calls to get the tax payers out of bed with this failed institution? The Republican party is making no such call.

SOS
09-06-2008, 09:59 PM
bond holders win; stock holders fail

McCain did in his acceptance speech.

NYSE:FRE
52Wk High: 65.88
close: 5.10
After Hours: 4.04 -1.06 (-20.78%)

abudabit
09-06-2008, 10:02 PM
bond holders win; stock holders fail

Shit yeah, and take a look at this that they're throwing out there:

Fannie and Freddie need to sell billions of dollars of bonds each month to pay maturing debt. As of mid-August the companies had $223 billion of debt to refinance by the end of the quarter.

While they have continued to issue securities, Fannie and Freddie have paid record yields over U.S. Treasuries to attract investors reluctant to take on the debt even with its implicit backing from the government.

Freddie sold $3 billion of two-year reference notes this week at 3.229 percent, or 97.5 basis points more than Treasuries of similar maturity, the highest since at least 1998, based on company and market data compiled by Bloomberg.

And those are essentially backed by the government.

SOS
09-06-2008, 10:07 PM
Freddie Mac to sell $2 billion bills Sept 8 (http://www.reuters.com/article/newIssuesNews/idUSN0545727920080905)

Foreign central banks cut US agency holdings (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=/5-0&fp=48c3d05989cc900b&ei=eyjDSJykJYqWyAT04ZXaAw&url=http%3A//www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSNAT00434320080904&cid=1241724039&usg=AFQjCNEUjsuNHxgoQ2p32BVZJrhjnPWt4w)

TREASURIES-Bonds dip sharply after report on GSE backstop plan (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0562366020080905)

Motor Head
09-06-2008, 10:08 PM
No protection for "common" shareholders while seeking protection for preferred shareholders protecting them from total loss.

I wonder who will get thier money back out? The guy that invested $100,000 and was counting on it as apart of his retirement OR the guy that invested 10,000,000.00 that was just to pad his investment portfolio.

Life is a big shit sandwich, the more bread you got the less shit you have to eat.

moegolden
09-07-2008, 02:14 AM
in layman's terms, can anyone here testify as to the accuracy of the notion that republican-led deregulation is what created this scenario? that's something i heard someone say, but i have no knowledge of the industry.

abudabit
09-07-2008, 02:19 AM
in layman's terms, can anyone here testify as to the accuracy of the notion that republican-led deregulation is what created this scenario? that's something i heard someone say, but i have no knowledge of the industry.

No, that isn't what happened.

The major lenders always knew they would be bailed out, so they had no problem making high risk loans. In simple terms, government interference tilted the market towards an inefficient level.

And since both Democrats and Republicans are supporting the bail outs, that means both are partly responsible.

wes mantooth
09-07-2008, 02:23 AM
Socialism reigns supreme.

LiddyRules
09-07-2008, 02:25 AM
As scumbaggy the corporations are, I have to blame the government more for doing this. It's like despite how much I hate special interest groups, it's the corporations who are cowards when kowtowing to them.

CousinDave
09-07-2008, 02:37 AM
Here's what happend, all kinds of banks were giving mortgages to people that were speculators or were buying houses they could not afford.

So as soon as the market slows the speculators who have corporations and LLCs set up, just default and declare bankruptcy, so those people don't lose a thing other than their corporations and LLCs, they just will set up new ones and start over.

The banks gave what are called NINJA loans - No Income No Job Applicants, the banks don't care if the borrows default or not, because they got their closing costs up front and the govt through Freddy & Fannie is guaranteeing the loan, so the banks can't lose.

Now the banks are losing money because they aren't giving loans anymore, so they can't make any money.

Its all fucked up and now the govt is going to come in and make it ever worse.

But what choice is there other than to let bankers from Shanghai and Dubai take over?

Our political leaders (Republicans and Democrats equally) have fucked us all, but I guess they have more important things to worry about like homosexuals getting married, limiting medical procedures, etc...

But the American people will keep voting for these same assholes over nonsensical issues.

CousinDave
09-07-2008, 02:40 AM
As scumbaggy the corporations are, I have to blame the government more for doing this. It's like despite how much I hate special interest groups, it's the corporations who are cowards when kowtowing to them.


Don't ever be fooled - big corporations love big government, its the small businesses who hate big government.

Perfect example is in the Wal-Mart documentary, the governments will bend over backwards for a big company like Wal-Mart but a little hardware store, they'll anally ****.

abudabit
09-07-2008, 02:40 AM
But what choice is there other than to let bankers from Shanghai and Dubai take over?

What would be bad about that? If bankers from Shanghai and Dubai were doing all the lending there wouldn't have been a housing crunch. Why? Because bankers from Shanghai and Dubai would be operating for profit and the only way they can make profit is make good loans.

CousinDave
09-07-2008, 02:45 AM
What would be bad about that? If bankers from Shanghai and Dubai were doing all the lending there wouldn't have been a housing crunch. Why? Because bankers from Shanghai and Dubai would be operating for profit and the only way they can make profit is make good loans.

I don't see anything wrong with that, but that's the excuse the govt will give for taking control.

CousinDave
09-07-2008, 03:01 AM
whats next, are they going to take over the post office? OH yea, they already own that too


The Post Office is semi autonomous now, and I think they actually make money. Regardless the Post Office is a Constitutionally required institution.

CousinDave
09-07-2008, 03:06 AM
in layman's terms, can anyone here testify as to the accuracy of the notion that republican-led deregulation is what created this scenario? that's something i heard someone say, but i have no knowledge of the industry.


Anybody who says such a thing is just a Democrat hack spewing complete bullshit.

The Democrats are just as responsible as the Republicans for this mess, but trying to blame someone else makes them ever more at fault. Assholes they all are, I hope they all die horrible painful deaths.

TreeFortRichard
09-07-2008, 03:26 AM
I think this stinks, but wouldn't it make more sense to bail out the defaulting home owners? If you have $25 billion in defaults...and you give the money to buy out the loans then the home owners have outstanding then they get to keep their homes, their credit is ok, the loan company gets it's money and survives...

Instead they take over the loan company, and all the defaulters still lose their homes...

again, I think if you signed up for a shitty loan because you reached too far it's your fault. I could have bought a home for $50k more than i did but that would have been fiscally irresponsible. I get a home within my reach and can pay my bills...

LiddyRules
09-07-2008, 03:28 AM
I think this stinks, but wouldn't it make more sense to bail out the defaulting home owners? If you have $25 billion in defaults...and you give the money to buy out the loans then the home owners have outstanding then they get to keep their homes, their credit is ok, the loan company gets it's money and survives... The government doesn't work for the people maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan

CousinDave
09-07-2008, 03:51 AM
I think this stinks, but wouldn't it make more sense to bail out the defaulting home owners? If you have $25 billion in defaults...and you give the money to buy out the loans then the home owners have outstanding then they get to keep their homes, their credit is ok, the loan company gets it's money and survives...

Instead they take over the loan company, and all the defaulters still lose their homes...

again, I think if you signed up for a shitty loan because you reached too far it's your fault. I could have bought a home for $50k more than i did but that would have been fiscally irresponsible. I get a home within my reach and can pay my bills...


No the govt shouldn't be bailing out anyone. That's why this mess is taking place because people and corporations know the govt will bail them out so they make irresponsible decisions.

Something you don't hear about all these people loosing their homes, is that most of them are speculators who have bought property hoping to sell for a profit. The state with the highest rate of foreclosures in Nevada (Las Vegas specifically.) Its not primary residences, oh sure there are some that are, just like there always are, but I'm willing to bet the rate of foreclosures of primary residences isn't that much higher today than it was during the Clinton years.

I almost want the collapse to come so everything can be started over.

greensnacks
09-07-2008, 04:31 AM
Here's what happend, all kinds of banks were giving mortgages to people that were speculators or were buying houses they could not afford.

Correct. Freddy wrangles investors, much of which is foreign capital. Fannie takes the Freddy $$ and loans it to banks. Banks had so much capital, they loaned it to anyone who could write a signature. A few 100 thousand bad loans later and the banks are closing doors. As banks go bust, so does Fannie, Freddy and the value of the dollar. Watch the interest rates float higher and the 100% financing, adjustable and interest only vehicles disappear for the next 5-10 years. No money down? Go fuck yourself.



Its all fucked up and now the govt is going to come in and make it ever worse.


This takeover will largely be controlled by the Federal Reserve who will tighten the credit markets and lending requirements. Borrowing money will be expensive, but will likely stabilize the market. It may be worse for the borrower, but healthier for the economy.


But what choice is there other than to let bankers from Shanghai and Dubai take over?


The banks own the "last mile" between the customer and the lender. By controlling the lending requirements above the banks, they prevent Shanghai and Dubai from owning our banks. I agree, what choice do we have?


Our political leaders (Republicans and Democrats equally) have fucked us all, but I guess they have more important things to worry about like homosexuals getting married, limiting medical procedures, etc...

I think both parties know the game and there are trillions of dollars at stake for the next 100s of years if they allow foreign nationals to run in and buy our banks. Our only hope is that our government will give back Freddy and Fannie to the people when the economy stabilizes in the next year or two. Until then, cross your fingers.

Edible Napalm
09-09-2008, 08:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_MowsF73x0
Charlie Rose discussed the Bush administration's takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with four people knowledgeable about the matter's significance: Nouriel Roubini, New York University professor of economics; Mohamed El-Erian, CEO of PIMCO; Gretchen Morgenson and Floyd Norris, both with The New York Times. Here's some of what they had to say.