In 2003 Bush proposed oversight

[Darwinian]

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]By STEPHEN LABATON [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]… Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.[/FONT]

 

[Darwinian]

FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005
The United States Senate
May 25, 2006
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation

 

[Risk44]

What did you think before Fox and AM radio started thinking for you?

 

[Darwinian]

What did you think before Fox and AM radio started thinking for you?

Sweelou, that is your best rebuttal?

 

[tocco05]

What did you think before Fox and AM radio started thinking for you?

You make me laugh Lou. You talk about how repubs insult you libs all the time, but this response is typical of you and most of the libs around here. Darwin posted this article, and instead of giving Bush credit, you immediately start with your insults. This is why there can be no serious debate in this forum.

 

[Willie99]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Says it all right there hno:
[/FONT]

 

[Willie99]

What did you think before Fox and AM radio started thinking for you?

:nohead:

brilliance at work

 

[Willie99]

Sweelou, that is your best rebuttal?

Yes, that's his best game as he moans about being frustrated by "name calling".

It really does bring tears to my eyes.

:missingte

 

[Darwinian]

His only other rebuttal is criticizing spelling errors.

 

[Darwinian]

Cincy, did you read this?

 

[cincy_]

This explains the problems at Fannie and Freddie ... which the government bailed out ... and that is not my argument.

The legislation had nothing to do with the problems at other banks ... that was their own doing and it was a choice they made.

Those banks CHOOSE to invest in mortgage backed securities ... they CHOOSE to leverage their cash at 30:1 ... and now if they want to get rid of their bad assets, it's not for the taxpayer to ONLY take the bad debt.

 

[Willie99]

This explains the problems at Fannie and Freddie ... which the government bailed out ... and that is not my argument.

The legislation had nothing to do with the problems at other banks ... that was their own doing and it was a choice they made.

Those banks CHOOSE to invest in mortgage backed securities ... they CHOOSE to leverage their cash at 30:1 ... and now if they want to get rid of their bad assets, it's not for the taxpayer to ONLY take the bad debt.

I concur to some extent. There should be some sort of reciprocation by management and some shared reward, since we're sharing the risk. I believe Chrysler gave many such concessions in 1979.

 

[Risk44]

You are all the Puppets, The Banks,Rush, Bush, Fox, Rove and Am radio are the Puppetmasters... They are up there pulling the strings on ya.. You just dont see it..

How bout this one.. The REPUBLICAN PARTY IS FOR FREE REIGN FOR BANKS AND BIG BUSINESS.. Now you are doing what? Trying to Blame the Dems.. haha we've heard that before... Let me go find that post..

 

[Risk44]

Here it is:

You may have seen this post before:

The Bot Voice is back: BLAME DEMS! BLAME DEMS! BLAME DEMS! IGNORE THE FACT THAT WE DONT LIKE REGULATING BANKS! BLAME DEMS! BLAME DEMS! DONT ADMIT FAULT! DONT ADMIT FAULT! BLAME DEMS! A REPUBLICAN IS NEVER WRONG! BLAME DEMS! BLAME DEMS!

 

[Sekrah]

The legislation had nothing to do with the problems at other banks ... that was their own doing and it was a choice they made.

Those banks CHOOSE to invest in mortgage backed securities ... they CHOOSE to leverage their cash at 30:1 ... and now if they want to get rid of their bad assets, it's not for the taxpayer to ONLY take the bad debt.

THESE BANKS WERE STRONG ARMED INTO THESE DEALS BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS ON THE HILL, THREATNING BANKS WITH MORE AND MORE REGULATION IF THEY DIDN'T COMPLY!

I KNOW YOU LIBERALS LOVE REVISIONIST HISTORY, BUT YOU'RE NOT GETTING AWAY WITH IT HERE GOD DAMNIT!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses. It has been subjected to important regulatory revisions.

The CRA was passed into law by the U.S. Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. Only one banker, Ron Grzywinski from ShoreBank in Chicago, testified in favor of the act. [1]


Clinton Administration Changes of 1995
In 1995, as a result of interest from PresidentBill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs. These revisions<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0>[1]</SUP> with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.<SUP class="noprint Template-Fact">[citation needed]</SUP>
<SUP class="noprint Template-Fact"></SUP>
Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-1>[2]</SUP> The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent. <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-2>[3]</SUP> <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-3>[4]</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
[edit] George W. Bush Administration Proposed Changes of 2003

In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-4>[5]</SUP> This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-5>[6]</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>YOU BASTARDS ARE NOT GETTING AWAY WITH YOUR BULL$HIT HERE!</SUP>

 

[Sekrah]

You are all the Puppets, The Banks,Rush, Bush, Fox, Rove and Am radio are the Puppetmasters... They are up there pulling the strings on ya.. You just dont see it..

How bout this one.. The REPUBLICAN PARTY IS FOR FREE REIGN FOR BANKS AND BIG BUSINESS.. Now you are doing what? Trying to Blame the Dems.. haha we've heard that before... Let me go find that post..

You are so dumb and clueless about everything going on the world, Why do you even bother?

 

[festeringZit]

What did you think before Fox and AM radio started thinking for you?

ROFL. When a conservative/Repub makes a point, it must be
because they are brainwashed by either Fox or talk radio.

When a lib/leftist makes a point, it can't be because of
any of the other media outlets which are all liberal.

Amazing how that works isn't it.

Tocco is right, there is no serious debate in this forum.

 

[Sekrah]

ROFL. When a conservative/Repub makes a point, it must be
because they are brainwashed by either Fox or talk radio.

When a lib/leftist makes a point, it can't be because of
any of the other media outlets which are all liberal.

Amazing how that works isn't it.

Tocco is right, there is no serious debate in this forum.

There is never a serious debate with an Obama supporter, anywhere in the country, much less on this forum. They are blown out of the water and at every turn, and they just ignore the facts and tell the story however the hell they want to hear it.

They are completely ignorant about what is going on in the world and why Socialist policies wreck economies.

Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

They are all as clueless as Barney Frank.

 

[Risk44]

There is never a serious debate with an Obama supporter, anywhere in the country, much less on this forum. They are blown out of the water and at every turn, and they just ignore the facts and tell the story however the hell they want to hear it.

They are completely ignorant about what is going on in the world and why Socialist policies wreck economies.

Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

They are all as clueless as Barney Frank.

so now its Barney Franks fault... who was appointed in 2007.. LOL! Who is Clueless?

 

[cincy_]

<SUP></SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>YOU BASTARDS ARE NOT GETTING AWAY WITH YOUR BULL$HIT HERE!</SUP>

Since you're kinda on the dull side, let me explain this to you ... and I can do it without copy/paste too ... just read.

Banks did not have to keep any mortgage ... if they invested in sub-primes, they could be passed along to Fannie and Freddie. If a bank had them, it was because they chose to keep them.

On NFL Sundays, my local has his "man". This "man" covers all of my local's bets as long as they're reported. This Sunday, if my local decides not to pass on 200 times NYG and NYG doesn't cover, that's my local's fault ... get it?