Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Many of us have been here for years, you trying to constantly pump this on Ihub will do nothing. The only way this will move is if congress, or the courts make a decision.
Yep, once the government ( taxpayers) were payed back. The additional profits should've been put into an account to act as a back stop, in case of any future losses that might be incurred. The idea of conservatorship is to conserve, not destroy.
How can they call it taxpayer $$, when much more has been payed back than borrowed ? Ridiculous!
I agree : -)
Almost anyone is better than Avi !
Or $1.69
Great to see that Fannie made $$, too bad NONE of it benefits shareholders!
Sorry to hear that, maybe my grandkids will make something off this...
I paid $49 for this TURD !
Federal court, Federal judge, Federal government. I wish I had confidence in a just system, but I don't.
This will be a penny stock before long. Thanks Avi
Worst Week in Washington: Administration Pledges to Starve GSEs
October 23, 2015
Secretary Jack Lew and other Treasury officials this week seemed almost boastful in admitting that their only plans for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are to keep the institutions undercapitalized and to let their successors and the next Congress deal with them.
Lew, in an interview on CNBC, said a "clearly articulated exposure of risk" is the heart of a real, long-term reform of housing finance. He added, "It's overdue. I wish that we could work through the congressional process to get legislation. We're doing what we can administratively in the meantime. But the right answer is not to recap and release, as some say."
His assertion, essentially, was that Administration officials are at least protecting taxpayers by preventing the GSEs from resuming their pre-2008 role in the mortgage finance market.
In the eighth year of what was supposed to be a short-term conservatorship, the U.S. Treasury Secretary is still "wishing" officials could have found some common ground with Congress? The Housing and Economic Recovery Act stipulated that the Federal Housing Finance Agency was to restore the GSEs to a "sound and solvent" condition. Instead, Treasury continues to sweep up the GSEs' earnings and expose taxpayers to the risk of having to make up for losses – and then top officials lament that they are at an impasse with Congress.
Bethany McLean, author of Shaky Ground: The Strange Saga of the U.S. Mortgage Giants, regards the Treasury's latest declaration as a "total example of government dysfunction."
In an interview on PBS's The News Hour on Thursday, she reminded viewers that Fannie and Freddie play an important role in keeping the housing market stable and liquid. She seemed a little exacerbated by public officials who say they are protecting the taxpayer by making sure Fannie and Freddie are not allowed to retain earnings and rebuild their capital.
"The fact is, since the financial crisis, the hue and cry has been 'more capital, give banks more capital and the financial system will be safe.' Fannie and Freddie, with their over $5 trillion of securities outstanding, are operating on next to no capital," she said. "If there's a sudden shock to the system, if interest rates go up, if they suffer a loss, taxpayers will have to foot the bill again."
Pressed to affirm that there is indeed risk to taxpayers, she said, "That risk is still there and it's a total example of government dysfunction that we've had seven years to figure out this problem and we've done nothing."
Earlier this week Fannie Mae CEO Tim Mayopoulos acknowledged in POLITICO that the institution could need another infusion of taxpayer money in the near future. The $1.8-billion capital buffer Fannie had at the end of the second quarter will decline to zero in 2018 with the Third Amendment Sweep enacted in 2012.
Mayopoulos said the difference between $1.8 billion and zero on $3 trillion balance sheet is not big but commented, "If people are worried about that in the future, they should be concerned about that now, because that is the condition that we operate in." Of course, no one knows how large bailouts could be if the housing market suffered a major reversal.
Regardless, this week Treasury officials confirmed that they are chiefly concerned with not letting the GSEs recapitalize during the remaining 15 months of their watch. In an op-ed on Bloomberg View Monday, Treasury Counselor Antonio Weiss made that very clear, albeit with a myriad of flawed assumptions and unsubstantiated claims. He was also unapologetic in acknowledging that there is no time left to take on what is widely regarded as ground zero in the 2008 financial crisis: housing policy.
"But on one point, we should all agree: Seven years after the crisis, the housing finance system remains the great unfinished business of financial reform. The U.S. still needs a system that ensures sustainable, fair and affordable access to housing and limits the risk of a taxpayer-funded bailout," Weiss wrote.
Thus, after all this time, senior Treasury officials this week declared that at least there is a consensus that there is a problem but then steadfastly affirmed their refusal to address the GSEs' lack of capital – which is what the law directed them to do. That is not much of a housing policy legacy.
To find more Investors Unite blogs click here.
###
About Investors Unite: Formed by Tennessee activist investor and CapWealth Advisors Chairman and CEO, Tim Pagliara, Investors Unite (www.investorsunite.org) is a coalition of private investors from all walks of life, committed to the preservation of shareholder rights for all invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The coalition works to educate shareholders and lawmakers on the importance of adopting GSE reform that fully respects the legal rights of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders and offers full restitution on investments.
Navy, there's truth in that post, as a liberal, I will admit the liberals are responsible for pushing for more loans to be given to people, or families that weren't going to be able to afford them. But as I remember this trend started in the Clinton administration, with a republican congress. The banks and lenders then started to figure out that they could just split these loans up and sell them as A+ securities. So yeah there's plenty of blame to go around, also the GSE's hands aren't clean of all responsibility either.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Your reply post was deleted, but I read it in my email. Anyway, yeah unfortunately some didn't get the point of the article, if fact one poster commented on the article date completely missing the point of the article. Go FNMA
FactCheck.org
ASK FACTCHECK
Dueling Debt Deceptions
Posted on February 2, 2012
1.6K
Q: How much has the federal debt gone up under Obama?
A: During his first three years in office, it rose $4.7 trillion, an increase of 45 percent. Partisan graphics circulating via email and Facebook are both incorrect.
FULL ANSWER
Both sides are circulating deceptions about the federal debt, judging by the many queries we get from our readers. So we’ll try to set the record straight here.
There’s no sugar-coating it, as some supporters of President Obama have tried to do. And the rapid rise in the debt is alarming enough without fabricating false statistics, as some Obama critics have done.
It’s not true, for example, that the debt has increased only 16 percent since Obama took office. That erroneous calculation originally came from the office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. And — despite being corrected later — it has continued to circulate via email.
Even the corrected version, currently appearing on the site of the liberal group MoveOn.org and Pelosi’s Flickr site, is many months out of date as of this writing. It shows a 35 percent increase for Obama, which is now far too low.
And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush.
The figures in that graphic are pure fabrications, as anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office (not $6.3 trillion), and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years (not $6.5 trillion).
That’s a huge increase to be sure — 44.5 percent. And the Congressional Budget Office now projects that it will grow to more than $16 trillion by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30. At that point, the debt will have increased by more dollars in Obama’s first four years than it did in George W. Bush’s entire eight-year tenure, when it rose by $4.9 trillion. The rise under Obama would then be the biggest dollar increase for any president in U.S. history.
Here is how the nation’s total debt has fared under the past several presidents, as of Jan. 31, 2012, in trillions of dollars. The percentage increases are given in parentheses.
Our chart looks much different from Pelosi’s, because ours shows the actual dollar increase, not just the percentage change. As can be seen here, Obama’s 45 percent rise is nearly equal in dollar terms to his predecessor’s 85 percent increase — because Obama started from a much higher base.
Similarly, had we based our chart on the rate of rise, it would show the debt rising much faster under Obama than it did under Bush, whose increase was spread over eight years. Other adjustments could be made to account for inflation. Indeed, one of the most meaningful ways to look at the debt is to measure it not just in raw dollars but in comparison with the economy — as a percentage of the gross domestic product.
In this chart, which we generated from the most recent historical data and projections (Table 7.1) from the Office of Management and Budget, it can be seen that the total federal debt in relation to the economy is reaching historically high levels — approaching levels not seen since World War II. But it can also be seen that the rise started long before Obama took office.
In fact, the upward trend began with Ronald Reagan’s fiscal 1982 budget, declined somewhat from fiscal 1997 through 2001, and resumed the upward climb with George W. Bush’s first budget in fiscal 2002 (which started Oct. 1, 2001).
And the rise accelerated as the economy slid into the worst recession since the Great Depression, starting in December 2007. As the economy shrank, the debt-to-GDP ratio jumped 5 percentage points in the fiscal year that started Oct. 1, 2007, and another 14.8 percentage points during the following year. Obama took office nearly one-third of the way into that 12-month period. At the time, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was projecting the deficit for that fiscal year would be $1.2 trillion. It later rose to $1.4 trillion after enactment of Obama’s economic stimulus package, to be followed by back-to-back deficits of nearly $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2010 and $1.3 trillion again in fiscal 2011. CBO just projected the deficit for the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, will be $1.1 trillion.
A caution: The chart we’ve shown here is for total debt, including money the government owes to itself, chiefly through the Social Security trust funds. But a chart tracking only the debt owed to the public would show a similar shape. CBO projects that the debt owed to the public was nearly 68 percent of GDP in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, and will reach 73 percent this year and exceed 75 percent at the end of fiscal 2013.
We won’t attempt here to assess which side is more to blame for the mounting debt, or how much of the increase is Obama’s fault. Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein argues that the economic stimulus and other Obama policies account for just under $1 trillion of the debt added since he took office, while Bush added $5.1 trillion in his eight years — mostly due to tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, former Washington Post reporter Eric Pianin and others fault Obama for not getting more strongly behind the recommendations of his own deficit-reduction commission more than a year ago. Obama agreed to extend Bush’s tax cuts for two years, even as his commission called for tax reform. And he attacked Republican proposals to hold down the cost of Medicare, despite the commission’s call to move beyond the “phantom savings” in his own health care law, savings the commission said “will never materialize.”
All we can do here is point to the correct figures for how much debt has piled up on Obama’s watch, and note that there is ample blame to go around. When the partisan deceptions on each side are disregarded, the plain fact remains that the debt has increased, for many years, under both Democratic and Republican presidents. And it is currently increasing rapidly, reaching historically high levels, while partisans continue to struggle over what to do about it.
— by Brooks Jackson
Sources
U.S. Treasury. “The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It.” Online database. Accessed 2 Feb 2012.
Congressional Budget Office. “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022.” 31 Jan 2012.
Office of Management and Budget. “Historical Tables: Table 7.1—Federal Debt at the End of Year: 1940–2016.” 14 Feb 2011.
National Bureau of Economic Research. “US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions.” 20 Sep 2010.
Congressional Budget Office. “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019.” 8 Jan 2009.
Klein, Ezra. “Doing the math on Obama’s deficits.” Washington Post. 2 Feb. 2012.
Pianin, Eric. “Super Flaw: “If Only Obama Had Upheld Bowles-Simpson.” Fiscal Times. 22 Nov 2011.
Dorning, Mike. “Obama Agrees to Extend Bush Tax Cuts for 2 Years.” Bloomberg News. 6 Dec 2010.
The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. “The Moment of Truth,” final report. Dec 2010.
Sure you did.
Where has Blue been ?
True, have a good one brother.
Not looking like it so far.
A word from the great beambe =
RED !!!
Why do you keep arguing with the knuckle draggers ?
Yep, it's really stupid, and almost always wrong. There're only a few people on here that actually post useful info. I've owned this for years, but almost never check or post, because it's the same $#it everyday. Predictions based on nothing. And political arguments.
As usual all of the predictions for today were wrong.
More like 156 week low. What a POS !
Anyone still think Avi is doing a good job as CEO ? I said about 8 months ago that I thought he was mismanaging this company, and got blowback from some in this board. I think most of us are underwater on this now.
How about long list of gaps, and lock it in. Starting with gaps between $1.50 and $2.00 bronze, $2.00 and $2.50 silver and so on. MAKE SURE YOU LOCK IT IN !
And here we sit at $2.13 !
I'm feeling pretty sick, paid $49 share for this TURD. : (
Good analogy.
Another shitty day at FNMA : (
DDD = TURD
Very RED !
SSDD over here
The technology is cool, but I'm really starting to hate this stock.
I should be averaging down, but I don't want to buy any more, for fear this turd might go further down the toilet.
I hope so, I bought at $49
New 52 week low, what a turd this stock is.
Or RED
A long way from $50, but a good start, green close on a Friday.