Henry Paulson was ceo of goldman sachs during 2005-2007!! Then HE put fannie in conservatorship in 2008! Really?
His compensation package, according to reports, was $37 million in 2005, and $16.4 million projected for 2006. His net worth has been estimated at over $700 million
Before becoming Treasury Secretary, he was required to liquidate all of his stock holdings in Goldman Sachs, valued at over $600 million in 2006
He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974, working in the firm's Chicago office under James P. Gorter, covering large industrial companies in the Midwest. He became a partner in 1982. From 1983 until 1988, Paulson led the Investment Banking group for the Midwest Region, and became managing partner of the Chicago office in 1988. From 1990 to November 1994, he was co-head of Investment Banking, then Chief Operating Officer from December 1994 to June 1998, eventually succeeding Jon Corzine as chief executive. His compensation package, according to reports, was $37 million in 2005, and $16.4 million projected for 2006. His net worth has been estimated at over $700 million.
Paulson has personally built close relations with China during his career. In July 2008, The Daily Telegraph reported "Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has intimate relations with the Chinese elite, dating from his days at Goldman Sachs when he visited the country more than 70 times."
Before becoming Treasury Secretary, he was required to liquidate all of his stock holdings in Goldman Sachs, valued at over $600 million in 2006, in order to comply with conflict-of-interest regulations.
I think its clear what im saying, The government (politicians) are blaming fannie mae for profits that have funded the government, and for profits that Fannie would of made with or without FHFA.
The most important thing is how can a company be bad that YOU the government have FULL control over for over 7 years? How can their current profits be bad? FHFA determined the profit level by setting Gfee.
How is Fannie bad when the government fired EVERYONE in charge and put its own people in 7 years ago.
How can Fannie be bad when IT IS THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN! Banks all ran for the hills 7 years ago.
The government could not force a bank to lend in a downturn! they would not, it would push their balance sheets more negative and certainly push them over the bankruptcy edge. So they would not lend!
Fannie kept lending, as a matter of fact they increased lending before and after the TAKEOVER!
The banks ran from mortgages before 2008 and would never lend in that environment!
So again How is fannie bad if the government controlling it is not bad too?
Todays fannie is not 2008 fannie. not even close, they have a regulator FHFA and HERA that govern them now. FOR LAST 7 YEARS!
So explain how todays Fannie mae is bad?
How can FHFA and POTUS still think Fannie is bad?
Who is responsible for over 7 years for Fannie mae! They are!
They have run the companies, and for a downfall by banks that lasted 1.5 years, in 7 years they still blame fannie mae? They fired everyone, They put their people in charge. They Take all the profits. There are ZERO losses. How can Fannie be bad, if that is the case, FHFA is bad too. We know they dont think that.
The public losses they talk about, never happened.
THe stockholders getting rich, certainly is not happening. So if Fannie is bad after 7 years, Then FHFA and the government is bad managers.
If a mcdonalds was taken over and new managers were put in, 7 years later they could not blame the old staff! They could only blame themselves. and for what would they blame, Making the biggest profit out of all bailouts?
Blame for all profits? And its not a viable business, CLOSE that profitable mcdonalds! give it to burger king.
But burgerking(banks) caused the mess. EHH... we dont care! Our pockets are fat now, we are your politicians!. anyway its a joke to pretend a profitable corporation is useless and BAD somehow. Fannie has never lost a lawsuit to the bank, but banks lost over 20 to fannie! Who's the #$%$? Banks.
GSE are not banks. Nor is best buy. Capital does matter. It was capital for banks too. GSE were never in a liquidity crisis! GSE was only ones giving mortgages in 2009! Seem like they had no Cash? NO it didnt.
(D) Powers as conservator
The Agency may, as conservator, take such action as may be-- (i) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition; and (ii) appropriate to carry on the business of the regulated entity and preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity.
Its only powers as conservator.
The Agency may, as conservator, take such action as may be--
(i) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent
(ii) appropriate to carry on the business of the regulated entity
and preserve and conserve the assets and property of the
DOJ says the may is a may if FHFA wants, but can do the opposite too.
no! the may is can do (i) or (ii) or a little of both. as may be!
ugg, DOJ is really twisting it!. in law may and shall are different, but shall is must do. may is must do within the framework. Not may do what FHFA wants.
Pratt didnt hardly understand where HE was. or what Fannie Mae is. Cooper is right, just need a judge that is capable of reading law, and wont be swindled by DOJ
I would argue, the DOJ does not understand law.
(a) Appointment of the Agency as conservator or receiver
(2) Discretionary appointment The Agency may, at the discretion of the Director, be appointed conservator or receiver for the purpose of reorganizing, rehabilitating, or winding up the affairs of a regulated entity
(2) has NO POWER, only what (a) allows, which is an APPOINTMENT.
FHFA and Treasury have stated it is a conservatorship! Winding up affairs is not a power given in (a)(2). power is given in section
(b) Powers and duties of the Agency as conservator or receiver
No matter the wording in (a) it only gives Appointment of one or the other, NO DUTY.
DUTY is given in (b)
(2) General powers (A) Successor to regulated entity The Agency shall, as conservator or receiver, and by operation of law, immediately succeed to-- (i) all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of the regulated entity, and of any stockholder, officer, or director of such regulated entity with respect to the regulated entity and the assets of the regulated entity; and . . . (B) Operate the regulated entity The Agency may, as conservator or receiver-- (i) take over the assets of and operate the regulated entity with all the powers of the shareholders, the directors, and the officers of the regulated entity and conduct all business of the regulated entity; (ii) collect all obligations and money due the regulated entity; (iii) perform all functions of the regulated entity in the name of the regulated entity which are consistent with the appointment as conservator or receiver; (iv) preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity; and (v) provide by contract for assistance in fulfilling any function, activity, action, or duty of the Agency as conservator or receiver. …
(D) Powers as conservator
The Agency may, as conservator, take such action as may be-- (i) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition; and (ii) appropriate to carry on the bu
In plain view.
2008 F&F had 40 billion in capital, before the conservator took over.
by end of 2008, 47 billion plus the 40= 87 billion write down! actual losses in 2008 were 10 billion! Now no matter who you are why would F&F pay 10% interest on money they didnt need? Only way that happens is if the FHFA who told F&F to write down 70 billion more was in charge, NO CEO would ever take on that debt when it was not needed and then increase the liquidation preference by 70 billion, or 7 billion a year in payments to the treasury. Maybe they were just being cautious for the next quarters coming up? NO! they had a backstop of basically unlimited funds. F&F could of only took what the actual loss was for the quarter and borrowed it after the loss occurred! The FHFA had to show F&F were bad! FHFA chose to force them to write down more than the loss! F&F while in conservatorship HAD ZERO CHOICE but to do as told!. THERE is your story for the WSJ crap editor! LIARS, all of them.
truth is in the wide open! There is NO ONE telling the truth in the Media or in congress. Free Press is a lie in America, just as it is in Russia.
No you dont, after 7 years, NOTHING. Fannie mae is everything, cant sell shares doesnt change the value of those shares. $188 billion Liquidation value on 1 million shares. Ok dont sell them, but the court will rule they are not worth $188 anymore, but are worth $0. As treasury has been paid $240 billion for them. so not only will treasury not be able to sell them, they will be worth zero. I would like to short them shares. They wont go up in value, and can only go down. Do you think that if you close fannie, you fixed a problem? LOL thats a special kind of stupid. Even with the lie thats being told, everyone knows the banks fleeced us all! Everyone also knows Fannie save america. From 2008 to NOW, zero new mortgages and zero refi's would have been done without Fannie around! Thats a fact! And they repaid all the money! Cant say that about S&L in the 80's, can you.