Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

"A. ".....before the end of the Conservatorship occurs." There is no mention of timing rekcusdo."

1. I have to disagree with this obiterdictum.

Please do.

2. As I tried to infer in my post, Watt does state that the Conservatorship should not end until Congress completes housing reform.

Inference is one thing and inference is not a quote. What Watt actually said is not inference, it can be quoted. Please provide the quote where Watt states that "the Conservatorship should not end until Congress completes housing reform." The statement that Watt was said to have made - "the Conservatorship should not end until Congress completes housing reform," is absent in the 5 statement made below as well.

3. Of course, he doesn't say "next week" or "next month", but the combination of the 5 statements I posted in my last post...:

1. conservatorship is not a desirable end state and that Congress needs to tackle the important work of housing finance reform.
2. if reform is not done right
3. Congress can engage in the work of thoughtful housing finance reform before we reach a crisis
4. Although the Enterprises are not building capital while they are in conservatorship
5. We have made these ongoing conservatorships work thus far

...to me, clearly indicate that though Watt does not approve of Conservatorship, he feels it necessary until reform is done.

That is an inference and not what Watt said. Are not desirable and does not approve equivalent rekcusdo? Can these be substituted for one another? Does "conservatorship is not a desirable end state" (plus all of the other 4 statements) mean the same as "does not approve of Conservatorship"?

4. I recall that he said in another statement (that I'm afraid I don't have time to locate at this moment) that although he doesn't approve of Conservatorship, he doesn't feel there is a good alternative at this time. To me, this seems to clearly propose his viewpoints around continued Conservatorship until reform occurs.

Please find Watt's statement where he says that "although he doesn't approve of Conservatorship, he doesn't feel there is a good alternative at this time" so that this statement or paraphrase is not left to validation by personal recall.

"B. "release from Conservatorship is not a good idea" There is no mention of release. "

5. I'm not sure what you meant by this.

Where (and when) has Watt said, in what has been presented, that release from Conservatorship is not a good idea?

6. There are only 3 possible states of Conservatorship. The state of being in Conservatorship, the state of moving from Conservatorship to Receivership and the state of Release from Conservatorship. Receivership hasn't been discussed by Watt once, so that's out. Our entire topic has been about Watt's viewpoint on Conservatorship release. If he is saying "conservatorship is not a desirable end state", then all that is left is receivership or release. Therefore, release can be reasonably inferred. Unless I misunderstood your purpose of posting this response, of course.

Inference: End state does not only refer to the conservatorship per se. It also refers to, at least, the possible end states planned for by congressional reform which Watt opines he awaits while working in the present. Possible end states via congressional reform would then include or resemble 1) receivership, liquidation and elimination (Hensarling, Corker-Warner, Johnson-Crapo) and 2) replacement of GSEs by a new entity (Hensarling, Corker-Warner, Johnson-Crapo) or passable, future GSE reform legislation. It can be inferred that end states as stated by Watt arrives through congressional reform and is not limited to release, a transition to receivership or release.

"Short - https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4498579/fhfa-director-mel-watt-future-fannie-mae-freddie-mac

So, by his words, he does not see the FHFA (Watt) ending the conservatorship, releasing the GSEs. Instead, he digs in and focuses on handling what happens day by day without considering the future too much beyond giving a warning that the legislators better hurry up because the GSEs are approaching an iceberg as he did in February 2016.

Watt sees his responsibility as maintaining the GSEs in the conservatorship while waiting for the legislators to come up with a reform law that will tell him what to do, whatever that may be. "

7. First, I disclose that I watched the short version. If there is more on the long version, let me know. I'm at work and can't watch the long version right now.

The longer clip has more. 11 minutes or so of viewing en toto is all that is needed (2:56-14:00). There are Nick Timiraos' questions and Watt's answers. - Try this clip https://www.c-span.org/video/?319402-1/newsmakers-mel-watt&start=175 - The entire interview is here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?319402-1/newsmakers-mel-watt

8. Second, this was a comment he made in 2014. A lot has happened in the last 2 years, so I do need to take his 3 year old comments with a grain of salt.

What else is there to work with? What has changed in Watt's stated views or in what he says? This has been reviewed. See these videos. These are an audio visual record of Watt's statements on record and not interpreted by the media or pundits:

Melvin Watt Nomination - Senate Hearing - June 27, 2013
http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/6/nominations-hearing
Changes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - May 13, 2014
https://www.c-span.org/video/?319352-1/changes-fannie-mae-freddie-mac
Newsmakers with Mel Watt - May 16, 2014
https://www.c-span.org/video/?319402-1/newsmakers-mel-watt
Housing Finance - January 27, 2015
https://www.c-span.org/video/?324024-1/hearing-sustainable-housing-finance
Housing Policy - February 18, 2016
https://www.c-span.org/video/?404891-1/fhfa-director-mel-watt-remarks-housing-finance
More here: https://www.fhfa.gov/Media

9. Third of all, the first half of his statement seems to be that times change, and he doesn't know what the future will be like. Furthermore, he made it clear that his responsibility is not to shareholders, but to taxpayers (which seems partially shocking to me, but it is what it is). Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I don't see that his comments in the video you posted as contradicting what I posted in my post. My post is basically suggesting that Watt does not want to release the Conservatorship as long as he perceives the companies in danger.

Has Watt at anytime suggested that he "does not want to release the Conservatorship as long as he perceives the companies in danger"? Please provide the supporting statements made by Watt.

10. He made it clear in 2016 that to get out of danger, he expects Congress to create housing reform. His post in 2014 does not contradict his statements in 2016 or the logic behind my post.

But rekcusdo, it was stated above that I do need to take his 3 year old comments with a grain of salt.

"Now that there is a new administration, there are new possibilities that will soon be revealed, more or less. "

11. I agree. New times are always coming and we shall see what changes. But, the one constant thru this entire Conservatorship is Watt's statements that he believes Conservatorship is a necessary evil and that housing reform is necessary in order to make the companies "risk-free". I don't personally believe that Watt will be on board with any action that moves to release the companies without Congressional reform. I therefore still put most of my hope in the court system. That being said, I do believe that Trump and Mnuchin can take actions unilaterally that would benefit shareholders...whether they will or not, I can't say for sure as there is no real comment to support what their actions would be.

Where are Watt's statement that support this inference: "Watt's statements that he believes Conservatorship is a necessary evil?"

This post is about the difference between inferences and quotations. Inferences made from the statements of another is subject to accuracy and error since it is a mentally imagined product. Some inferences made from statements made are close to accurate, while some may not be. Inferences made from statements and the actual statements made can jibe closely. Inferences made from statements are usefully stated without confusing them with actual statements. For example,

Jim says: "The sky is blue."

John making an inference says: Jim said the the sky is a cool color since blue is a cool color.

Boris says: No, Jim said the sky is blue. That is a truism. What else he feels or thinks, I have no idea.

Is that what Jim said or meant? What he may have meant more than the simple statement "The sky is blue" is unknown. The inference made is a leap of imagination into what Jim means. To actually know what Jim meant beyond the plain words, Jim must be asked: "What did you mean when you said the sky is blue."

An actual statement can be recorded in a specific media (print, digital, AV, etc.) and is not an imaginary product of inference. And if there is any doubt about the meaning of the statement, the statement can be quoted in an intersubjectively visible form and then meaning and inferences discussed or one can ask the horse's mouth. However, making and stating inferences as if they are statements actually made is problematic. It is putting words into a speaker's mouth and that can lead to misunderstandings.

A pedantic response. Yes.

Useful: Depends on the reader.