Read up on "Weapons of Mass Destruction", "Rationale for Iraq War" and "Valerie Plame".
And don't miss reading up on the Barrons article and its reference to issuance of preferred stocks by both Fannie and Freddie as "capital fund raisers" in the year or so preceding their take over in conservatorship. Then tellme you blame the government, only, for the events that transpired.
I say, AGAIN, there is plenty of blame to share with the government... but to blame everything on them and sue for some enormous payday is a scandal of truly epic proportions. That is a simpleton's conclusion. That is the New York Times conclusion. Excuse me for being redundant. LOL.
I do believe I know who leaked the documents. That is the only thing I am hiding, and I have good reason to not wanting to reveal that juicy little nugget until some of the aftermath plays out.
Peter Wallison was an integral part of the FCIC and a frequent advisor to the government on housing affairs. He along with Professor Anthony Sanders provide much of the academic rationale for governmental actions regarding the GSEs. His expert opinions carry a lot more weight than some newspaper reporter who seeks notoriety for dragging the White House into some inquisition to disparage Obama and taint his legacy that wasn't far enough to the left to satisfy some far left agenda.
No, ybikees, that is not correct. The government agreed to declassify certain documents that were previously available to her attorneys only, documents that even she was not allowed to review. This is per Judge Sweeney's ruling on December 18, 2015.
Neither the government or the court gave blanket permission for documents to be furnished the New York Times or photo-bombed on Twitter, including e-mails with unredacted e-mail addresses of government officials and outside resources like Peter Wallison.
There is no support to the assertion that the documents released by the NY Times are the same as were declassified in the Robinson case.
Nobody in government leaked those documents. Any such action could only serve to undermine further protection of any documents presently under seal. No way this happened.
"Maybe their whole goal" sorts of theories ignore the reality that most of the pressure to wind down and privatize the GSEs were led by Republican initiatives. The one exception is the Mulvaney bill which strikes a more middle-ground posture. Obama has played virtually no role in this liittle piece of history. He, personally, has no concern over how these suits progress.
The changes in the Delaware litigation could tend to deliver a speedier outcome. But not necessarily a better outcome. If the Supreme Courts in Virginia and Delaware decide to decline intervention in questions of law without precedent, the whole thing just gets sent back to Lamberth or Sleet. IF, and it's a big if, these courts decide to rule, it will likely not be a simple "yes" or "no" statement on legal or illegal under any and all circumstances. I keep saying that a 100% sweep is likely wrong, but nullifying any sweep in any amount is equally wrong. Same thing with the perpetuity assertion. So any ruling, if it happens, may not be all that helpful except to tell the government to end or define the period of swept income and accept something less than 100% for any continuing duration.
Then consider the real outside-the-box enigma where Delaware and Virginia could rule differently, or one could refuse to rule at all and force all these GSE lawsuits to be split into separate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lawsuits. In complex litigation scenarios, always expect the unexpected!
I'm not in favor of the apparent underground railroad document trail between Judge Sweeney's courtroom and Investors Unite and the New York Times writer, Gretchen Morgenson.
They can say this is to "free" the documents from government control and concealment under the FIA. Great. But it could involve two additional ulterior motives. One party wants an enormous payday from government, eventually and inevitably to be paid for by taxpayers who got no vote on conservatorship or Amendment 3. And another party wants to develop this so-called plot into another "Purloined Letter" plotline for a movie script and another Pulitzer by dragging Obama's legacy through the political muck in true, Nixonesque Watergate fashion by tying the White House to Fanniegate issues that the President never, ever even truly understood or took a position on in all likelihood.
I think Judge Sweeney is getting duped by these BS artists.
No,incorrect. The government has the right to file a higher appeal of Sweeney's ruling, if they wish. This could be an appeal of the, frankly, ridiculous Friday timeline... one week, gimme a break... for the test documents listed on Amendment 1 to the last order. Or it could be an appeal of the June 10th deadline which is a lot to ask for against a universe of 11,000 documents.
I actually think it is even money the government will, instead, file for a mistrial hearing based on unprofessional document control of the 53 leaked items of privilege.
The latest and stated as final order on the matter from Judge Sweeney required hard copies of the requested documents to be delivered on Friday as examples for court review. The government was told that earlier filed reviews of documents asserted for privilege could stand or be expanded by defendants. The final item was that the government was given until June 10th to provide all documents for review.
There was nothing on gselinks regarding execution on Friday, nor did I expect anything after the gaffes over Documentgate, earlier on. I doubt we will hear much more until after June 10th, and maybe not at all until the ruling is released on the end game. Sweeney has already had one embarrassment with leaks on James Parrot's testimony and 5th Amendment assertions that came close to setting off a maelstrom of "foul" allegations by government. I doubt she will leave the case open for a mistrial hearing by putting anything private at risk of being compromised again.
Your grasp of the situation is actually very sound. It was the hedge funds and banks that, at least according to the extensive ProPublica investigation, that certainly prolonged and worsened the crisis, if not creating it in the first place. This view was largely reaffirmed by the FCIC narrative minority opinion,by recollection.
My problem with much of the so-called "expert analysis" of the crisis is that so much of it seems, by design, to set out to prove the plaintiff's "charges" in pending lawsuits. There is no doubt in my mind that a healthy chunk of the causality lies with government's actions and, especially inactions in a failed regulatory environment of laxity towards banks, GSEs and poorly understood financial innovations and cutting edge financial instruments, especially noting CDOs and derivatives. Then throw in the repeal of Glass-Steagall and all the manipulation of GAAP/non-GAAP accounting standards under FAS and there is PLENTY of blame to go around for Uncle to share in. Not for everything bad that happened, as the current litigation circus avers, but plenty of culpability in any fair, balanced analysis.
The GSE "system" needs an overhaul, whether it is called reform, wind down or wind up. Simple release and recapitalize is a prescription for another disaster that our world as we have come to know it may not survive, the second time around.
The part of The Big Short story that is thinly understood is the role hedge funds played in driving big banks to package loans expected to fail into synthetic CDOs where the hedges shorted financial products that were, by their very design, worth more dead than alive. This is the infamous Magnetar Trade scenario that I keep bringing up but NOBODY wants to touch because it exposes the dark corridors of accusal in how the Financial Crisis really played out.
Read the ProPublica archived series if you have the guts to learn the ugly background that everyone else is too scared to discuss.
(continued) with capital reserves of less than 2%.
Fannie Mae had $44 billion with which to cover losses on nearly $900 billion in loans. Then there's the small matter of $2 trillion+ in MBS guarantees.
The math is not your friend.
Take your reasoning one step further. Suppose Treasury never pushed for liquidity by pressuring the GSEs on subprime and Alt-A loan purchase from banks. This would have saved them most all of their mark-to-market losses. Most every bank would have failed, meaning no additional mortgage originations of ANY kind = no reason for the GSEs to remain in business. With banks failing and the economy plunging into a depression with 25% unemployment, the number of high-quality mortgages falling into delinquency and foreclosure would have destroyed as much as 25% of the GSEs portfolios under guarantee. The GSEs according to the Financial Crisis Investigation Commission owned/guaranteed $5.3 trillion in mortgages with
Camera samples? You guys should study some law. "In camera" is a legal term that means in private (literally drawn from the latin for in chambers). It has absolutely nothing to do with a Kodak moment.
Interesting perspective on women. Do you mean women like Marissa Mayer and Carly Fiorina?
Bwahahaha. Just another troll, seeking attention by cross-dressing in fagadocia-land to get attention.
If the lawsuits go back to 2008 when conservatorship was imposed, the data back to 2008 is compelling. Right, there, Ms. Robinson?
C'mon, blade. We could use some unfettered comments on this board.
I must admit that I do like some Kentucky straight bourbon, but not in some fruitcake julep with mint and an umbrella adornment. Those people down there must all be restroom challenged as to identity and where to pee.
Read the Barrons feature article on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bradford dropped the ball on this bloated and bogus bag of baloney biased towards bagging bonus bucks for bubba's betting on blue-sky betterment and buttressing of bad bets on bludgeoned stock buys blasted by big boys that know better.
Lawsuits will be dismissed when the Barrons article gets read into the court record as it was published on March 10,2008. No embellishment needed. White House economist Jason Thomas even drafted an extensive report to Treasury Under-Secretary Robert Steel that contributed background to the Barron's report.
Now we can put an end to the baloney and B.S. that "we never knew" and "Paulson said" and even "Mudd said" about financial health at the GSEs. This was a nationally syndicated story in Barrons and should have warned ANYONE thinking about buying stock in Fannie & Freddie of the extreme risk of bailout and failure for shareholder investments.
Now the discussion can turn into quibbling over how much of a % of income CAN be legally swept... 70%, 80%, 90%, 99%... and how many years that can take place to avoid the "perpetuity" which has apparently never been spelled out in Virginia or Delaware law andis never specified in Amendment 3 as a defined period (although it could be presumed as 2028 which is when the warrant conversion option expires).
You bought it? You own it. That's what investing is all about. It's called risk/reward. Not risk-or sue.