Fannie Mae Preferred S (FNMAS)

[mrfidlsticks]

lifted these from the comments section .....

"Tim Pagliara
2/6/2014 1:52 PM EST
I was mis-quoted. I acknowledged that Corker had imbedded taxes of 5-10 basis points on every mortgage originated by their new federal agency. This is a cost of $20-40 per month on a $500,000 mortgage. My comment was that this was billions of dollars over time with no clear policy goals for the investment or distribution of the funds for affordable housing."

"rickstersherpa
10:20 AM EST
It would be nice if you actually looked at the Corker-Warner Bill, also known as the "Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Guarantee to Make More Billions at Taxpayer Expense Act."

"...The Corker-Warner bill touted in the piece makes the financial deregulation of the 1990s looks like a model of cautious reform by comparison. Instead of having Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are now essentially government-run companies, guaranteeing mortgage backed securities (MBS), it would allow private financial institutions to issue MBS with a government guarantee. The only protection is that the investors would have to eat the first 10 percent of the losses..."http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press...";

Nice .... to see more ...take a look at ....
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/why-is-jeff-bezos-paper-using-ageist-tripe-to-push-wall-street-takeover-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac
and even more here ....
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/GSEs-2013-10.pdf
"Conclusion
The country has experienced an economic disaster as a result of a housing bubble fueled by
irresponsible and fraudulent loans. The current system, in which Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac are effectively publicly controlled, provides an efficient and relatively safe way to
support the secondary mortgage market. However, the system of government-guaranteed
MBS laid out in many housing reform plans, including S.1217, would likely lead to the same
sort of abuses that were seen in the private-issue market in the housing bubble years.
However, this time the issuers would have the additional benefit of a government guarantee.

The most efficient solution would be to leave the current system of publicly run GSEs intact
to sustain the secondary market. Given the enormous risks involved, and the limited
potential savings to homeowners, the country would be much better served by simply taking
the government out of the secondary market, rather than going the route of having the
government guarantee privately issued mortgage-backed securities. "