Replies to post #356293 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[brandemarcus]

How about citing some facts or statistics from those stress tests that disprove my numbers ? For 3 years on this board you have been predicting a decline in housing prices ? Wrong , wrong ,wrong! price -rent ratio vastly different than in 2005 ? What assumptions were used in that stress test?
These are the same government predictors who missed the housing crisis on the way in and now they are busy covering their tracks predicting the two hundred year floods in a row after they missed the first one. Of course those assumptions would devastate the banks to an ever greater degree. In Fact such new housing recession would keep the gse's alive because once again they would be needed to help out the banks. So much for the liquidation! I am not interested in hypothetical results lets use real actual numbers, not loss provisions and hypothetical results!
Second , how does citing hypothetical stress test results refute Mc Farland? You are changing the subject and refuting her with results that are hypothetical and have not happened yet? Where's the beef! Those 2 quarters you cited have nothing to do with credit losses, they are simply interest rate hedging losses that will reverse in the long run.

[brandemarcus]

By the way ,those stress test results are simply running the same distorted accounting methodology from 2009 and just repeating it. The model writes off dta 's again and runs up excessive loss provisions way in excess of what stress tests for the big banks resulted in. Garbage in , garbage out! Obvious Bias! Repeating the same stunt a second time!

Just a side question to avoid future endless arguments over definitions: Do you understand the difference between a loss projection and an actual loss?
Do you understand that a loss provision can be reversed? I know Bob Corker either pretends to not understand this or does not!