status is none of yer' damn business!! :-)
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.
"it's about deregulation and letting the crooks run wild "
Yep, both Dem. and Rep. are repsonsible for this mess.
Years of abuse? How may years you talking about,8 or 30?
What Kerry said was just more political jargon to appease his base as all politicians do. Why didn't he or any other Dem. express those concerns the exact moment Bush sent the troops in?
Why the "man of color" reference? So tired of everyone bringing race into a simple statement that would be better presented without it.
LOL, who gave him the authority?
I will be suprised if he is not outed by April.
No more than Kerry, Gore, Clinton (H&B), etc. etc. lied as well.
Yep, and it's scary to think a bumbling idiot like Biden is our VP. Gonna be an intersting 4 years I can tell you that.
Well...he does seem to have the same affliction that Joe Biden does, FIM disease.
LOL, don't go dumb? I'm not the one who actually believes those politicans were lied to. You're acting a bit gullible there L. Don't you understand yet that politicians are like diapers?
LOL, It was only a matter of time before they asked Steele to step down.
LOL, denial is a bitch isn't Laura. Wagging my finger at you again right now.
Poor Saddaam? LMAO...now that's rich.
The real rub is....
You mean that same bad intel that senate had BEFORE Bush was president?
Can't believe you people are still pushing that BS and further actually believe it.
And actually the biggest clown was Jimmy Carter, soon to be followed by Obama.
LOL< you like posting BS or what? Waht's the fascination with Ruch? Diversion tactic to keep people from seeing what this Dem. controlled gov't is pushing through? I find it amusing that all you libs are now hooked on Rush and enabling the guy and quite possibly building his base even more.
Yep, increased costs will be passed off on to the consumer period, and idiots continue refuse to accept that FACT.
Come on Steph. Every one of those assholes in Congress (R & D) has a hand in this mess including Obama.
FACT CHECK: Obama 'tax hikes' a matter of words
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says he would lower taxes on 95 percent of Americans now and raise them on the rich in 2011. Republicans say he will increase taxes for all and in the midst of a recession to boot.
So who's right?
Yes, all Americans would pay more under the president's policies. His own aides concede that.
But no, Obama would not raise taxes in the midst of a recession, as long as his economic assumptions bear out.
The president's budget lowers taxes immediately for middle- and low-income Americans — about 95 percent of working families. It also raises taxes starting in 2011 on households that earn more than $250,000 a year.
But Obama also would impose a tariff on industries that pollute. Obama's top budget and economic advisers say those costs will get passed along to consumers. A tax? Indirectly, yes. Felt by most Americans? Yes, again.
Republicans also have asserted that Obama's tax increases would occur in the midst of a recession, a bad idea when the economy needs consumers to spend more.
But the tax increases won't occur for two years. The tariff on greenhouse emissions won't generate revenue until 2012, according to the president's budget. Obama's economists are counting on being out of the recession by then, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank has said "there is a reasonable prospect" that 2010 could be a year of economic recovery.
But Obama is ANNOUNCING tax hikes and fee increases in the midst of a recession. And that, Republicans say, is bad enough.
"People may read it as a tax increase, even if, effectively, it's not for 18 months, let's say," said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.
THE CLAIM: "The president's budget increases taxes on every American, and does so during a recession," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
"Let's just be honest and call it a carbon tax that will increase taxes on all Americans who drive a car, who have a job, who turn on a light switch, pure and simple," House Minority leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said of Obama's plan to impose a tariff on polluters.
THE FACTS: Under Obama's plan, tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush for families making more than $250,000 would be allowed to expire in 2011, increasing the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The top capital gains tax rate would jump from 15 percent to 20 percent.
Middle- and low-income taxpayers — 95 percent of Americans, by the president's calculations — would receive a new tax credit that provides up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for couples. They also would receive an expanded $2,500 tax credit for college expenses.
Obama also would impose fees on greenhouse gas producers, including power plants that burn fossil fuels, by auctioning off carbon pollution permits. The goal is to reduce the emissions blamed for global warming. The fees would raise a projected $646 billion over 10 years.
Obama aides don't dispute that consumers will get the passed-along costs. In testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee in September, White House budget chief Peter Orszag, then the director of the Congressional Budget Office, said companies that have to pay the emissions fees "would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances. Instead, they would pass them along to their customers (and their customers' customers) in the form of higher prices."
The added cost to consumers is meant as an incentive to reduce energy consumption.
"If people don't change how they use energy, then they will face higher costs for energy," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Tuesday.
On Wednesday, Orszag told the House Ways and Means Committee that he could not provide a specific cost to consumers under Obama's plan — which aims to reduce greenhouse emissions 14 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels. CBO projections last year — based on 1998 pollution levels — estimated that a 15 percent reduction in emissions by 2018 would increase costs to low and moderate income families by about 3 percent of their total income. Obama's tax cuts would mitigate some of that increase.
Arguments that the mere expectation of direct or indirect taxes or fees is damaging in a recession are based on a 19th century economic theory that taxpayers will anticipate higher taxes when a government operates at a deficit and will hoard, not spend, their money. The theory, called the Ricardian equivalent, is central to the Republicans' claims.
"The reason is employers and job creators make decisions based on the future," Camp said in an interview. "They will start acting accordingly now."
Any of you liberal fools sorry for electing this moron yet?
Sorry to hear that, my thoughts and prayers to his family.
These Stocks Could Skyrocket 100%, Says Jon Najarian
Posted By: Lee Brodie
Topics:Stock Market | Stock Picks
On CNBC’s “Closing Bell” FM contributor Jon Najarian told Dylan Ratigan he sees a catalyst out there that could lift banks [XLF 6.89 --- UNCH (0) ] as much as 100% - and as soon as next week.
The catalyst involves mark-to-market accounting; which has been blamed for forcing banks to record billions of dollars in writedowns.
According to Reuters, a U.S. House Financial Services subcommittee is expected to hold a hearing on mark-to-market accounting rules as soon as March 12. The SEC's chief accountant and the chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, will be asked to testify, the report said.
If that meeting results in the government relaxing mark-to-market rules, Najarian thinks the stock market could explode.
He says, “if the government relaxes mark-to-market for 12 to 18 months you could see financials move 100% in a matter of hours.”
And he goes on to say, “In fact, I hope you’ll replay the soundbite because if the government relaxes mark-to-market accounting a number of banks stocks will be unbelievable values at these levels.”
But that's not all. Najarian thinks the move could not only light a fire under banks, but the entire market. “If that Reuters report above is right there’s a very good chance the entire market will get a big lift.”
Again, the date to watch is March 12th.
For more on this and other stock plays with Jon Najarian, please watch the video to your left.
Morning bud and everyone. Gonna be an ugly day today with that possible BK news from GM. GLTA.
I still have a bit in my long stash and there is more and more talk about the uptick rule coming back and hopefuly they will bring it back to phuck these shorting assholes. BUT I think the market's gonna be ugly today with that possible BK news from GM.
Not right now, still on my radar though.
LOL, indeed I am.
Then I guess you do not know the meaning of a dictatorship then do you?
MTL doing well. Looking for at least 5 if it breaks the 50 MA.
Market wants to rebound, hopefuly Geitner will keep his mouth shut for a few years.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008
by Barry Nielsen,CFA (Contact Author | Biography)Email ArticlePrint Comments
When the housing bubble of 2001-2007 burst, it caused a mortgage security meltdown. This contributed to a general credit crisis, which evolved into a worldwide financial crisis. Many critics have held the United States Congress - and its unwillingness to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - responsible for the credit crisis. In this article, we'll examine the extent to which Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and their allies in Congress contributed to the largest financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression. (For background reading, see What Caused The Great Depression?)
A Brief History of Mortgage Markets
For most of the twentieth century, mortgage lending took place mostly at banks, thrifts, credit unions, and savings and loans. The most common type of mortgage was a fixed-rate mortgage and most of the financial institutions originating mortgages held the mortgages that they originated on their books.
Starting in 1968, when Fannie Mae was chartered by the U.S. Congress as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), and two years later when Freddie Mac was chartered as the same, things began to change quickly. (Fannie Mae was originally created in 1938, but until its privatization in 1968 it was a part of the U.S. government). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created a liquid secondary market for mortgages. This meant that financial institutions no longer had to hold onto the mortgages they originated, but could sell them into the secondary market shortly after origination. This in turn freed up their funds such that they could then make additional mortgages. (To learn more about secondary mortgages, see Behind The Scenes Of Your Mortgage.)
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a positive influence on the mortgage market by increasing home ownership rates in the United States; however, as history has proved, allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to function as implied government-backed monopolies had major repercussions that far outweighed the benefits these organizations provided.
The Privileges of GSE Status
According to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's congressional charters, which gave them GSE status, they operated with certain ties to the United States federal government and, as of September 6, 2008, were placed under the direct supervision of the federal government.
According to their congressional charters:
The president of the United States appoints five of the 18 members of the organizations' boards of directors.
To support their liquidity, the secretary of the Treasury is authorized, but not required, to purchase up to $2.25 billion of securities from each company.
Both companies are exempt from state and local taxes.
Both companies are regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The FHFA regulates the financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including implementing, enforcing and monitoring their capital standards, and limiting the size of their mortgage investment portfolios; HUD is responsible for Fannie and Freddie's general housing missions.
(For more information on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's organization and missions, see Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Boom or Boon?)
Fannie and Freddie's GSE status created certain perceptions in the marketplace, the first of which was that the federal government would step in and bail these organizations out if either firm ever ran into financial trouble. This was known as an "implicit guarantee".
The fact that the market believed in this implicit guarantee allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to borrow money in the bond market at lower rates (yields) than other financial institutions. The yields on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's corporate debt, known as agency debt, was historically about 35 basis points (.35%) higher than U.S. Treasury bonds, while 'AAA-rated' financial firms' debt was historically about 70 basis points (.7%) higher than U.S. Treasury bonds. A 35-basis-point difference might not seem like a lot, but on borrowings measured in trillions of dollars, it adds up to huge sums of money. (For more on agency debt see, Agency Bonds: Limited Risk And Higher Return.)
Private Profits With Public Risk
With a funding advantage over their Wall Street rivals, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made large profits for more than two decades. Over this time period, there was frequent debate and analysis among financial and housing market professionals, government officials, members of Congress and the executive branch about whether Fannie and Freddie's implied government backing was working mostly to benefit the companies, their management and their investors, or U.S. homeowners (particularly low-income homeowners) as was part of these firms' HUD-administered housing mission.
One thing was clear: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given a government-sponsored monopoly on a large part of the U.S. secondary mortgage market. It is this monopoly, combined with the government's implicit guarantee to keep these firms afloat, that would later contribute to the mortgage market's collapse. (For more on the secondary mortgage market, see Behind the Scenes of Your Mortgage.)
Fannie and Freddie's Growth
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew very large in terms of assets and mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) issued. With their funding advantage, they purchased and invested in huge numbers of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, and they did so with lower capital requirements than other regulated financial institutions and banks.
Figures 1 and 2, below, produced by the companies' former regulator, the Office of Housing Enterprise Oversight, show the incredible amount of debt issued by the companies, their massive credit guarantees, and the huge size of their retained portfolios (mortgage investment portfolios). U.S. Treasury debt is used as a benchmark.
Figure 1
Source: Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
Figure 2
Source: Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
A Cause for Concern
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had many critics who tried to raise a red flag of concern about the risks the companies were allowed to take thanks to their implicit government backing. However, despite these early warning cries, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac found many allies in Congress.
Maintaining Monopolies
While Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rivals, along with some public authorities, called for tighter regulation of the mortgage giants, the companies hired legions of lobbyists and consultants, made campaign contributions through their own political action committees, and funded nonprofit organizations to influence members of the U.S. Congress to ensure that they were allowed to continue to grow and take on risk under their congressional charters and implied federal backing.
The GSE's Wall Street Rivals Join the Party
It should come as no surprise that Fannie and Freddie's rivals on Wall Street wanted in on the profit bonanza of securitizing and investing in the portion of the mortgage market that the federal government had reserved for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They found a way to do this through financial innovation, which was spurred on by historically low short-term interest rates. (To learn more, read What is securitization?)
Starting in about 2000, Wall Street began to make a liquid and expanding market in mortgage products tied to short-term interest rates such one-year CMT, MTA, LIBOR, COFI, COSI and CODI. These adjustable-rate mortgages were sold to borrowers as loans that the borrower would refinance out of long before the rate and/or payment adjusted upward. They frequently had "exotic" characteristics such as interest-only or even negative-amortization features. In addition, they were frequently made with lax underwriting guidelines such as stated income and/or stated assets. Subprime lending took off. (For more insight, see Subprime Lending: Helping Hand Or Underhanded?)
Investors such as pension funds, foreign governments, hedge funds and insurance companies readily purchased the sophisticated securities Wall Street created out of all the mortgages it was now purchasing. As Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saw their market shares drop, they too began purchasing and guaranteeing an increasing number of loans and securities with low credit quality.
The Party Ends When Home Prices Stagnate and Fall
It's a simple fact that when home prices are rising, there is less risk of mortgage default. The equity in a home is the single biggest risk measure of default. Homeowners with large amounts of equity do not walk away from their mortgages, and can usually refinance out of a mortgage with soon-to-be-expected payment increases into another mortgage with low initial payments. This is the model upon which homeowners, mortgage originators, Wall Street, credit rating agencies and investors built the mortgage bonanza. When the housing bubble burst, so did all of their sophisticated risk models. (To learn more, read How Will The Subprime Mess Impact You?)
In 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to experience large losses on their retained portfolios, especially on their Alt-A and subprime investments. In 2008, the sheer size of their retained portfolios and mortgage guarantees led the FHFA to conclude that they would soon be insolvent. By September 6, 2008, it was clear that the market believed the firms were in financial trouble, and the FHFA put the companies into "conservatorship". American taxpayers were left on the hook for future losses beyond the companies' existing - and shrinking - capital cushions.
Conclusion: The U.S. Congress is Largely to Blame
Members of the U.S. Congress were strong supporters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Despite warnings and red flags raised by some, they continued to allow the companies to increase in size and risk, and encouraged them to purchase an increasing number of lower credit quality loans. While it is probable that Wall Street would have introduced innovative mortgage products even in the absence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it might be concluded that Wall Street's expansion into "exotic" mortgages took place in part in order to compete and take market share from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In other words, Wall Street was looking for a way to compete with the implicit guarantee given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the U.S. Congress.
Meanwhile, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's debt and credit guarantees grew so large that Congress should have recognized the systematic risks to the global financial system these firms posed, and the risks to U.S. taxpayers, who would eventually foot the bill for a government bailout.
There are many articles claiming F&F were to blame and many articles saying they are partially to blame and some say they are not to blame. Thye are partly to blame but I like the article above that puts the blame exactly where it should be. ON CONGRESS!!!
Easy now, facts confuse liberals.
Typical liberal, want something for nothing. Too funny.
"Late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship"
Did you vote during that time? You're going off the deep in with that comment Laura.
No it won't.
Yep, almost time.
One week? How about permanently.