Fanny And Freddie

[AmScray 355]

Not a surprise to anyone but the completely retarded, Fed announces that the Fannie and Freddy will not be allowed to fail.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25665507/The article references that they hold or underwrite about 1/2 the outstanding mortgages in the US.

[BigLebowski 0]

The OP is a perfect example of why Phil Gramm was right about the "Nation of Whiners".

The Enron and UBS Phil Gramm? The same one who said it will be no big deal when people get laid off?

[BigLebowski 0]

Not a surprise to anyone but the completely retarded, Fed announces that the Fannie and Freddy will not be allowed to fail.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25665507/The article references that they hold or underwrite about 1/2 the outstanding mortgages in the US.

yeah, shocker. I am just wondering at what point does it stop? Every time the government does this they get "bigger". I don't like the direction big government is heading. I would like see what small government would be like during my lifetime.

[AmScray 355]

Fannie and Freddie definitely wouldn't be a good 'jumping off point' at this point in time, as far as letting them fry.I couldn't care less about Bear, but definitely not FMC/FRE.

[Kenny Banya 0]

Fannie and Freddie definitely wouldn't be a good 'jumping off point' at this point in time, as far as letting them fry.I couldn't care less about Bear, but definitely not FMC/FRE.

But you do realize that this makes things much worse don't you?

[AmScray 355]

But you do realize that this makes things much worse don't you?

Please explain why, in a way that won't make me immediately think someone at the retard home must've left the door to the internet lab open after the most recent "life skills" class and you just happened to shake your supervision and wander back in.

[Kenny Banya 0]

Please explain why, in a way that won't make me immediately think someone at the retard home must've left the door to the internet lab open after the most recent "life skills" class and you just happened to shake your supervision and wander back in.

You really think government is competent enough to save this company? You see no problem in a government that comes running to help every problem that comes along? Just getting past the fact that government is using tax payer funds to start saving companies non-stop and seeing how government is the least efficient distributor of goods and services, just take a look at the bail out repercussions. What tools do the Treasury Department have that they can use? I mean what do you think M3 is at right now? M3 has to have increased 15%-20% in the last year. The Federal Reserve is going to just print up more money to save this section of the economy. Inflation is becoming a gross monster. If this was such a blessing, why not save every industry that employs people?Everything has an equal and opposite reaction. These companies LOST money...and you don't see the risk of giving them a free $15 billion to keep them a float? Where did they get the money from? There is a $9.5 trillion debt. Printing money to give to companies is not a way to a healthy economy.

[Loismustdie 0]

You really think government is competent enough to save this company? You see no problem in a government that comes running to help every problem that comes along? Just getting past the fact that government is using tax payer funds to start saving companies non-stop and seeing how government is the least efficient distributor of goods and services, just take a look at the bail out repercussions. What tools do the Treasury Department have that they can use? I mean what do you think M3 is at right now? M3 has to have increased 15%-20% in the last year. The Federal Reserve is going to just print up more money to save this section of the economy. Inflation is becoming a gross monster. If this was such a blessing, why not save every industry that employs people?Everything has an equal and opposite reaction. These companies LOST money...and you don't see the risk of giving them a free $15 billion to keep them a float? Where did they get the money from? There is a $9.5 trillion debt. Printing money to give to companies is not a way to a healthy economy.

I see your point of view. I just think it's shortsighted. When even Scram says,"Yeah, they probably shouldn't let them fail" you should look up and listen. Now, out of curiosity, explain to me exactly what the fed is proposing. I would be interested to hear what you think has happened so far, and if action has been taken.

[Kenny Banya 0]

I see your point of view. I just think it's shortsighted. When even Scram says,"Yeah, they probably shouldn't let them fail" you should look up and listen. Now, out of curiosity, explain to me exactly what the fed is proposing. I would be interested to hear what you think has happened so far, and if action has been taken.

You still haven't answered how the $59 trillion debt is going to be paid off...My view is not short sighted. It is exactly the opposite of short sighted. My concerns about future inflation and future dollar deflation and a crunch on earnings/savings is a long term issue. You and Scram are the ones who are short sighted in thinking it was a great idea to save these companies so that the market runs good today. Sure it will send confidence into the market today, but there will be future unintended consequences.It is nice you think of me as an expert now in the Fed's actions. You could easily do something crazy, like read the news, to find out what the Fed is doing. But I will do your homework and say what course action have been taken!- the Federal Reserve has been given a greater role in supervising the finances of Fannie and Freddie- the Federal Reserve announced Sunday that the mortgage finance companies can turn to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for fundsYou will have to find out what this means on your own...

[copernicus 0]

That made me laugh.

Laugh away."The SEC states that "Naked short selling is not necessarily a violation of the federal securities laws or the Commission's rules," and clarifies that in some circumstances, it can contribute to market liquidity.[4] However, naked shorting to drive down share prices violates US law."

[copernicus 0]

This thread reminds me why I dont bother reading poly/economics on FCP. Spend some time on 4, fellas, at least you'll get a sorely needed education.Of course, since DN is so clueless it just reflects his level of thinking.

[gobears 0]

Barrons had an article on Freddie/Fannie over the weekend.Their prediction: common and preferred holders get nada. Some smart folks are buying the bonds at a discount and will make coin. Taxpayers will end up paying a bill of about $100 billion.

[copernicus 0]

Barrons had an article on Freddie/Fannie over the weekend.Their prediction: common and preferred holders get nada. Some smart folks are buying the bonds at a discount and will make coin. Taxpayers will end up paying a bill of about $100 billion.

Link?My guess is that this was not put forth as a "prediction".

[gobears 0]

Link?My guess is that this was not put forth as a "prediction".

Not sure if the link will work as it may not be on the free side.Barrons Article

[copernicus 0]

Not sure if the link will work as it may not be on the free side.Barrons Article

thanks for trying, only for subscribers

[LongLiveYorke 38]

This thread reminds me why I dont bother reading poly/economics on FCP. Spend some time on 4,

BITE YOUR TONGUE!!

[Loismustdie 0]

You still haven't answered how the $59 trillion debt is going to be paid off...My view is not short sighted. It is exactly the opposite of short sighted. My concerns about future inflation and future dollar deflation and a crunch on earnings/savings is a long term issue. You and Scram are the ones who are short sighted in thinking it was a great idea to save these companies so that the market runs good today. Sure it will send confidence into the market today, but there will be future unintended consequences.It is nice you think of me as an expert now in the Fed's actions. You could easily do something crazy, like read the news, to find out what the Fed is doing. But I will do your homework and say what course action have been taken!- the Federal Reserve has been given a greater role in supervising the finances of Fannie and Freddie- the Federal Reserve announced Sunday that the mortgage finance companies can turn to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for fundsYou will have to find out what this means on your own...

I already know. The question is, currently, what ACTION has actually taken place? The answer is, nothing. It's there if they need it, so far, they haven't. Question- do you buy an insurance policy and then sit in a corner and cry because one day you may need it? I read some stuff about "if the treasury buys stocks in the company that will dilute the share value." Sure- IF. That's step 3 in the plan, and step one hasn't even been used yet. There are a number of ways this could go, it's tough to gauge exactly where, especially when(especially FNM) basically says they have more capital to work with than they ever have. Interesting tidbit on Indymac- FDIC froze all current foreclosures in there bank owned properties, so they can work with the homeowners, investors, etc. I like that move-it's possible that they can end up repackaging this company and making it a viable option for another bank to buy. We will just have to wait and see.

[Loismustdie 0]

Laugh away."The SEC states that "Naked short selling is not necessarily a violation of the federal securities laws or the Commission's rules," and clarifies that in some circumstances, it can contribute to market liquidity.[4] However, naked shorting to drive down share prices violates US law."

All I know is we don't allow it,and as far as I know it's because it's illegal. If we don't have shares to lend you, we don't have shares to lend, end of story. We can always go to another firm and borrow from them but it will cost you to do it. In some cases that might make sense to pay the monthly fee to do so, but for the most part people don't go that route.

[copernicus 0]

All I know is we don't allow it,and as far as I know it's because it's illegal. If we don't have shares to lend you, we don't have shares to lend, end of story. We can always go to another firm and borrow from them but it will cost you to do it. In some cases that might make sense to pay the monthly fee to do so, but for the most part people don't go that route.

Your firm may be taking a conservative position but it is NOT illegal. A number of hedge fund managers use a portable alpha strategy of going long on one stock in a sector and shorting a different one in the same sector.

[Loismustdie 0]

Your firm may be taking a conservative position but it is NOT illegal. A number of hedge fund managers use a portable alpha strategy of going long on one stock in a sector and shorting a different one in the same sector.

That's not being naked. Naked implies that the broker/dealer allows the client to take a short position without having the ability to borrow it. Here is aquick synopsis of how it's supposed to work:o profit from the stock price going down, short sellers can borrow a security and sell it, expecting that it will decrease in value so that they can buy it back at a lower price and keep the difference. The short seller owes their broker, who usually in turn has borrowed the shares from some other investor who is holding his shares long; the broker itself seldom actually purchases the shares to lend to the short seller.[1] The lender of the shares does not lose the right to sell the shares.Short selling is the opposite of "going long." The short seller takes a fundamentally negative, or "bearish" stance, anticipating that the price of the shorted stock will fall (not rise as in long buying), and it will be possible to buy at a lower price whatever was sold, thereby making a profit ("selling high and buying low," to reverse the adage). The act of buying back the shares which were sold short is called 'covering the short'. Day traders and hedge funds often use short selling to allow them to profit on trading in stocks which they believe are overvalued, just as traditional long investors attempt to profit on stocks which are undervalued by buying those stocks.In the U.S., in order to sell stocks short, the seller must arrange for a broker-dealer to confirm that it is able to make delivery of the shorted securities. This is referred to as a "locate," and it is a legal requirement that U.S. regulated broker-dealers not permit their customers to short securities without first obtaining a locate. Brokers have a variety of means to borrow stocks in order to facilitate locates and make good delivery of the shorted security.The vast majority of stock borrowed by U.S. brokers comes from loans made by the leading custody banks and fund management companies (see list below). Sometimes brokers are able to borrow stocks from their customers who own "long" positions. In these cases, if the customer has fully paid for the long position, the broker cannot borrow the security without the express permission of the customer, and the broker must provide the customer with collateral and pay a fee to the customer. In cases where the customer has not fully paid for the long position (meaning the customer borrowed money from the broker in order to finance the purchase of the security), the broker will not need to inform the customer that the long position is being used to effect delivery of another client's short sale.Most brokers will allow retail customers to borrow shares to short a stock only if one of their own customers has purchased the stock on margin. Brokers will go through the "locate" process outside their own firm to obtain borrowed shares from other brokers only for their large institutional customers.Stock exchanges such as the NYSE or the NASDAQ typically report the "short interest" of a stock, which gives the number of shares that have been sold short as a percent of the total float. Alternatively, these can also be expressed as the short interest ratio, which is the number of shares sold short as a multiple of the average daily volume. These can be useful tools to spot trends in stock price movements.

[grimtaash 0]

You're not looking at the future. A good economist looks into the future. You obviously don't know anything about the economy. You look at stores having goods, streets having cars on them and think everything is fine. Why don't you answer this and only this. When and how does the $59 trillion debt get paid off?EDIT: And I'm not worried about people eating me. Why don't you ask the Germans what you get in times of economic crisis...

I think it's worth pointing out that most of the $59 trillion is money expected to be paid out to Medicare/Medicaid as well as Social Security. This is why if you read your annual Social Security statement, it points out that starting around the year 2040, Social Security will have more money going out than coming in, and the system will be in trouble. I don't think calling this a $59 trillion dollar debt is accurate, because these programs will simply be unable to be funded without drastic change.I'm not saying this is not an important issue. I feel quite the opposite actually. This is a huge problem that seems to get swept under the rug by politicians, and is very rarely covered by mainstream media. Guess thats the way it goes when the problem won't involve any issues in the upcoming election.....

[copernicus 0]

I think it's worth pointing out that most of the $59 trillion is money expected to be paid out to Medicare/Medicaid as well as Social Security. This is why if you read your annual Social Security statement, it points out that starting around the year 2040, Social Security will have more money going out than coming in, and the system will be in trouble. I don't think calling this a $59 trillion dollar debt is accurate, because these programs will simply be unable to be funded without drastic change.I'm not saying this is not an important issue. I feel quite the opposite actually. This is a huge problem that seems to get swept under the rug by politicians, and is very rarely covered by mainstream media. Guess thats the way it goes when the problem won't involve any issues in the upcoming election.....

Worse than being swept under the rug, the problem is hyped beyond the reality as a political football. Even the conservative talk show hosts rail on about both Bush and Clinton "bankrupting Social Security".

[copernicus 0]

That's not being naked. Naked implies that the broker/dealer allows the client to take a short position without having the ability to borrow it.

My bad, I was using the common defintion, not the legal one.

[Kenny Banya 0]

Worse than being swept under the rug, the problem is hyped beyond the reality as a political football. Even the conservative talk show hosts rail on about both Bush and Clinton "bankrupting Social Security".

Everyone knows SS is bankrupt...don't you lol

[Nimue1995 1]

thanks for trying, only for subscribers

Strange because I'm not a subscriber but I was able to read it. Took quite a while to load for what was there but then I have a dinosaur computer.