cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Finances

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-08-2008, 08:12 PM   #1
Solon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
Solon is on a distinguished road
Default Fannie and Freddie

I'm surprised that the financial geniuses in these parts have left this story alone so far today. I was waiting to read what they had to say.

http://www.economist.com/finance/dis...ry_id=12078933

This is a pretty huge development, IMO. While it's clear that the feds had to do something to keep Freddie and Fannie afloat, I'm a little sick when I think of how much it might cost taxpayers in the long run.

Meanwhile, their executives have been extremely well paid (e.g. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25740405/)

I don't know how all the ramifications will play out.

PS - maybe I should have put this in current events. Sorry if it's misplaced.
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957)
Solon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2008, 05:29 PM   #2
Mormon Red Death
Senior Member
 
Mormon Red Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Clinton Township, MI
Posts: 3,126
Mormon Red Death is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Per Today's TMQ:

Next Government Press Release: "Deficit Spending Good for Your Children": Perhaps Washington had no choice but to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, considering what we now know about years of self-serving lying by the management of both institutions. But taxpayers have been put on the hook for at least $200 billion in loan guarantees. Buried in the conservatorship declaration is word Congress may add extra subsidies to Fannie and Freddie to keep mortgage interest rates low. Washington has been involved in many loan guarantees, but never in mortgage rates. This all-new subsidy will make mortgage markets political on a permanent basis -- any time rates rise, borrowers seeking mortgages will demand taxpayers subsidize them. By shifting to taxpayers (and to our children, via still more deficit spending) some of the cost of borrowing, this may only further distort the mortgage market, encouraging buyers and brokers to generate imprudent loans and then passing costs along to taxpayers.

Note another aspect of the Fannie-Freddie takeover that politicians don't want to talk about. On paper, the takeover looks like a bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy, creditors receive preference (because they hold a promise of payment) while shareholders are wiped out (because equity positions are speculative and known to buyers to guarantee nothing). The Fannie-Freddie takeover preserves the companies' bondholders, while making shareholders appear to get clobbered -- the government receives a warrant to claim up to 80 percent of shares, which would slash a share in Fannie or Freddie to 20 percent of current value. But the government must exercise that warrant. If not, shareholders are bailed out too. As soon as attention shifts to the next screw-up, lobbyists for the rich quietly will twist White House and Congressional arms for assurances the warrants are never exercised. If this happens, average people will be taxed to protect the wealth of Fannie and Freddie shareholders. "We only wish [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson had gone further and erased all private equity holders the way the feds do in a typical bank failure … [share]holders deserve to lose everything." Who said this, some left-wing fanatic? The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I'll post my thoughts later.. as I am busy at work.
__________________
Its all about the suit
Mormon Red Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2008, 05:35 PM   #3
FMCoug
Senior Member
 
FMCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kaysville, UT
Posts: 3,151
FMCoug
Default

It seems to be pretty clear that we have "progressed" from an economy that understands the invisible hand and business cycles to one where the governement feels like they have to do whatever it takes to keep it growing.

Paulson's comments sickened me. The basic rationale was that because the economy can't recover until the housing market turns around, we (the gov't) are going to artificially "fix" the housing market.

Disgusting.
__________________
Still fat ...
FMCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2008, 05:48 PM   #4
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon View Post
I'm surprised that the financial geniuses in these parts have left this story alone so far today. I was waiting to read what they had to say.

http://www.economist.com/finance/dis...ry_id=12078933

This is a pretty huge development, IMO. While it's clear that the feds had to do something to keep Freddie and Fannie afloat, I'm a little sick when I think of how much it might cost taxpayers in the long run.

Meanwhile, their executives have been extremely well paid (e.g. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25740405/)

I don't know how all the ramifications will play out.

PS - maybe I should have put this in current events. Sorry if it's misplaced.
The government had to step in if they cared at all about market stability. Fannie and Freddie have issued over $5 TRILLION in agency paper. That is a HUGE amount of cash, and the government can't afford for Fannie and Freddie to look like they can't cover the paper. If they did, the dollar would be weakened tremendously, markets would seize up, money supply would tighten, etc. It would have been a disaster. I also think the government structured the "takeover" very well. The deal created a new class of preferred stock that will be issued to the government. In effect, by becoming a preferred stockholder, the government told the markets that the paper will be covered no matter what. In a liquidation, creditors are paid off first, followed by preferred stockholders, followed by common stockholders. By becoming a preferred stockholder, the government preserved the interests of the debtholders first, and we know the government isn't going to allow a default for the debtholders when it means the preferred stockholders (i.e., the government) would get nothing back.

The markets love the move so far. They have to. There was too much at risk if Fannie and Freddie went under.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2008, 07:47 PM   #5
cougjunkie
Senior Member
 
cougjunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 5,741
cougjunkie is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
The government had to step in if they cared at all about market stability. Fannie and Freddie have issued over $5 TRILLION in agency paper. That is a HUGE amount of cash, and the government can't afford for Fannie and Freddie to look like they can't cover the paper. If they did, the dollar would be weakened tremendously, markets would seize up, money supply would tighten, etc. It would have been a disaster. I also think the government structured the "takeover" very well. The deal created a new class of preferred stock that will be issued to the government. In effect, by becoming a preferred stockholder, the government told the markets that the paper will be covered no matter what. In a liquidation, creditors are paid off first, followed by preferred stockholders, followed by common stockholders. By becoming a preferred stockholder, the government preserved the interests of the debtholders first, and we know the government isn't going to allow a default for the debtholders when it means the preferred stockholders (i.e., the government) would get nothing back.

The markets love the move so far. They have to. There was too much at risk if Fannie and Freddie went under.
I just came back from a training on this. The government also has the option to buy up to an 80% share if they would like. They have also opened a direct line to the US treasury for Fannie and Freddie. This has been huge for the mortgage industry and rates have dropped drastically. For those of you who have been looking to refinance you might want to call your broker today. The market is still fairly volatile but if you play it right the low 5s are a possibility.
__________________
LINCECUM!
cougjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2008, 07:55 PM   #6
BYU71
Senior Member
 
BYU71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
BYU71 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
The government had to step in if they cared at all about market stability. Fannie and Freddie have issued over $5 TRILLION in agency paper. That is a HUGE amount of cash, and the government can't afford for Fannie and Freddie to look like they can't cover the paper. If they did, the dollar would be weakened tremendously, markets would seize up, money supply would tighten, etc. It would have been a disaster. I also think the government structured the "takeover" very well. The deal created a new class of preferred stock that will be issued to the government. In effect, by becoming a preferred stockholder, the government told the markets that the paper will be covered no matter what. In a liquidation, creditors are paid off first, followed by preferred stockholders, followed by common stockholders. By becoming a preferred stockholder, the government preserved the interests of the debtholders first, and we know the government isn't going to allow a default for the debtholders when it means the preferred stockholders (i.e., the government) would get nothing back.

The markets love the move so far. They have to. There was too much at risk if Fannie and Freddie went under.

Market fall out of love fast. Have you seen today. How about Lehman down to about $7. The greedy SOB's on wall st have totally messed up the financial structure. Before you blame Bush, why don't you check out the party ID's of some of the biggest Wall St. players.

Especially the ones that come up with these f'ed up schemes every so often.
BYU71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2008, 07:58 PM   #7
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I learned something important in the past several months. The hard way.

Never have most of your retirement in a bank stock.

MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2008, 08:05 PM   #8
cougjunkie
Senior Member
 
cougjunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 5,741
cougjunkie is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BYU71 View Post
Market fall out of love fast. Have you seen today. How about Lehman down to about $7. The greedy SOB's on wall st have totally messed up the financial structure. Before you blame Bush, why don't you check out the party ID's of some of the biggest Wall St. players.

Especially the ones that come up with these f'ed up schemes every so often.
I have some insider trading tips on Lehman brothers. Their rates suck!
__________________
LINCECUM!
cougjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2008, 08:05 PM   #9
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I'm glad things are looking up for CJ. BYU71, I am not investing too much concern. He filched on a hot dog.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2008, 08:33 PM   #10
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BYU71 View Post
Market fall out of love fast. Have you seen today. How about Lehman down to about $7. The greedy SOB's on wall st have totally messed up the financial structure. Before you blame Bush, why don't you check out the party ID's of some of the biggest Wall St. players.

Especially the ones that come up with these f'ed up schemes every so often.
Lehman is bad, but they have been bad for a while. I think they are about to be sold (their stock price is moving very tightly right now). I bet you see a private equity firm take them over shortly. Maybe Al Gore's group.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.