Headlines...

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>Rumor is that GS is paying over $16 billion in bonuses for the holidays this year to their employees. That is an average of over $600,000 per employee, but my guess is that the officers will be getting a larger share. </p>
 
<p>Was not Fannie Mae supposed to be the solution to all of the real estate problems? </p>

<p><a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/21704236">www.cnbc.com/id/21704236</a></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack">"Fannie Mae posted a third-quarter net loss that was double its loss from a year earlier because of slumping home prices and the squeeze in credit markets that drove values of mortgage securities lower.</p>

<p class="textBodyBlack">Fannie Mae, the largest source of mortgage financing in the United States, said its third-quarter loss widened to <strong>$1.52 billion</strong>, including preferred stock dividends, or $1.56 per share, from $760 million, or 79 cents per share, a year earlier."</p>

<p class="textBodyBlack">More on the topic: <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/071109/fannie_earnings.html?.v=2">biz.yahoo.com/rb/071109/fannie_earnings.html</a></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack">Fannie is down about 8 percent and Freddie is down about 7 percent.</p>
 
<p>Idea of Jumbo-Loan Guarantee Is Floated</p>

<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119455499562686966.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119455499562686966.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</a></p>

<p>As an alternative to lifting that $417,000 cap, Mr. Bernanke offered a surprise answer to questions on Capitol Hill. He suggested that Congress could consider allowing the companies, known as "government sponsored enterprises," buy mortgages of as much as $1 million from lenders, pay the government a fee for guaranteeing them and then turn them into securities to be sold to investors.</p>

<p class="times">"That would be, I think, of some assistance to the mortgage market," the Fed chairman said. "From the federal government's point of view, it would be taking on some credit risk, which you may or may not be willing to do." He added, "It would be a good idea to make the GSEs ultimately responsible for some, any excess losses, or some part of excess losses, relative to the premiums that are paid."</p>
 
<em>Wachovia is dead. Remember what I said about World Savings? Oh yeah, Wachovia owns them.





eeewwwwwww.......





</em>Yes, I remember what you said about World Savings/Goldenwest. So does <a href="http://blogs.marketwatch.com/greenberg/2007/11/smartest-folks-in-finance-golden-wests-sandlers/">Herb Greenberg, and Robert Pattern, analyst for Morgan Keegan</a>.
 
<p><a href="http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/11/david-malpass-w.html">This</a> is one of the reasons why I don't believe that the op-ed pages of the WSJ are worth the paper they are printed on.</p>
 
<p><em>He suggested that Congress could consider allowing the companies, known as "government sponsored enterprises," buy mortgages of as much as $1 million from lenders</em></p>

<p>Grrrr, the Government has no business guarenteeing loans for $1,000,000. Loans of that value do not promote ownership for the general public.</p>

<p>In fact, IMHO, the GSE limits should be a simple function of 5X median income for a MSA. That promotes healthy ownership of the masses.</p>
 
If GSEs were approved to back loans exceeding $1MM dollars I am afraid to think what type of losses they would have seen this qtr....YIKES!!!!
 
Eva, the Op-Ed ceased being relevant years ago when it went from being an editorial by seasoned, well research senior members of the newspaper to be opinion soapbox laced with hyperbole in place of research and reason.
 
<p>Article I, Section 8. </p>

<p>"Powers of Congress: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and <strong>general Welfare of the United States."</strong></p>

<p>General welfare being appropriate giving the experience the founding fathers had with property rights in Europe.</p>
 
Oh please. If the founding fathers had any idea what crimes would be committed with that phrase, "general welfare of the United States", they would have taken it out back and shot it.
 
What are you trying to say? The Constitution written by the founding fathers is not relevant because they were slave owners?
 
<p>No, I'm pointing out how incredibly easy it is to identify just how different the world was and yet similar.</p>

<p>IMHO, the founding fathers had one singular purpose (purchase would be our current governmet), to establish a government that served the people instead of a government where the people serve it. i.e The European Monarchies. Serve all of the people and not just the privileged "lords", the land holders granted by the government.</p>

<p> </p>
 
Okay, but no one gave the lenders anything. A mortgage is a private consensual contract. Guarantee of mortgages by government will only protect large corporate interests, which is basically what you are saying the founding fathers did not want.<p>


It seems to me that everyone who has ever desired government interference in some aspect of people's lives for which the government has no business has used the phrase, "general welfare" to mean anything they wanted. This country was not designed as a democracy wherein the mob could rule by force and whim. It was designed as a nation of law and principle and to have as little government interfernce as neccessary.<p>


A paraphrase because I do not know the exact quote: "Those who would trade liberty for security, deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin
 
Just so everyone knows, mortgages are not "back by the full faith and credit of the US gov't" like greenbacks. They also are not FDIC insured. I am 99% sure that there is no actual legally binding contract requirement for the US gov't or FED to fund the GSE's. That's why they are publicly traded, to raise capital. Everyone "assumes" that the gov't will come to the rescue, but they aren't obligated.
 
<p><em>>>Guarantee of mortgages by government will only protect large corporate interests, which is basically what you are saying the founding fathers did not want.</em></p>

<p>If you haven't done so already, I would suggest reading bios of Hamilton and/or Jefferson, or any books regarding their spat about the creation of the First Bank of the United States. The majority of the FF went with Hamilton on that.</p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top