Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Donotunderstand]

955

as it appears to be your favorite subject

of the loans FNMA bundeled (not the PLMBS paper it stupidly bought)

what percent went bad

and can you separate out the so called dangerous ones and their rate of going south

my impression is FNMA - aside from a duopoly and lower cost access to money - also beat out the banks hands down in making smart purchases of mortgages for their packages - lower loss ratio

what do you think?

The banks without a mission to help the lower middle class what was there "go south" ratio v FNAM with its mandate to help those people ------- and my impression* that FNMA only dropped it 20% down or 10% with PMI requirement for about 10 months in the heat of competition and not to help these people

Seems to me the mandate to help the not so ready to own fell to HUD and the FHA and VA in terms of less able to handle mortgages people

but show me wrong - show me how FNMA did worse then the banks - the so called free market without mandate? worse being defined as losing more mortgages as a percent of those bundled or in dollars paid on the 100,000 packaged

you pick it - but show me (and the rest) that all that talk about how helping the lower middle class (upper lower class was not a FNMA market IMO)) was a major reason for the problems FNMA had

I say it lost money because
Cheated by Banks - on the paper they bought from banks and that this is the number one two and three reason for their problems

Horredous hangover economy (recession - and the mess from the swaps again at the banks -- in the trillions - ask AIG)

Real Estate bubble which FNMA had its share of guilt for but not more then its share

And frankly - I have no idea what place to put the implied lax underwriting for working with lower middle class folks

thanks - you have made it your issue - and I think I have been mostly quiet on that issue for quite a few days as you note it all the time in different colors of the rainbow