"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. "
I'm starting with this part of your post, because in it, he actually says what I was inferring to in this statement...I'm just seeing it now. But here it is more explicitly: Well clearly we have the authority to end the conservatorship. It’s in the statute. The statute gave us the authority to start it and it goes with that the authority to end it. But the alternatives would not be desirable alternatives. So, I think our role, and the reason we work so hard in the current space, is to make sure that we have a solid plan for continuing the operations of Fannie and Freddie, and the Federal Home Loan Banks, so that there will be liquidity and efficiency in the housing market; and that we continue to operate as we have operated without interrupting housing finance in this country, because housing finance is such a critical part of the economy. To stop, or stand in place, just simply is not an option. We’ll continue it and I think our goals are consistent with continuing the operation of Fannie and Freddie in the here and the now and we’ll do that until there is legislation passed....I am well aware, and regularly express my belief, that conservatorship should never be viewed as permanent condition or as a desirable end state and that housing finance reform is necessary
The rest of my post is just responding about the inference question ____________________________________________________________
"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." "
You seem to have confused "inference" with "assumption".
An assumption is where you take a simple statement such as "The sky is blue" and assume a "leap of imagination", as you said, into what Jim means....that "the sky is cool because blue is a cool color".
An inference is defined as a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them. Inferences are used quite often in court room settings by Judges in making their rulings. In fact, the entire legal theory of res ipsa loquitur DEPENDS on the dependability of inferences in a court ruling. I put forth that your example above "The sky is blue" does not adequately represent my posted comments. A better example would be: "Comment 1: Jim says the sky is blue. Comment 2: Jim says blue is a cool color. From this, we can infer that Jim thinks the sky is a cool color even though he didn't actually say he thinks the sky is a cool color."
As related to my more relevant example in the previous paragraph, I repeat my previous posted comments that Watt did state explicitly... 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. 6. the alternatives would not be desirable alternatives
From these statements, I can infer that Watt does not like the Conservatorship, feels they have been made to work thus far, feels that the Conservatorship is the only current desirable choice compared to alternatives, feels that Congress needs to tackle housing reform to make housing reform safe, feels if Congress doesn't tackle housing reform, there will eventually be a crisis, and feels that it is not his job to address the crisis, but is in fact, the job of Congress's. All of this creates the logically deduced consequence that until Congress solves the crisis, Watt will support Conservatorship as the best option compared to alternatives. Therefore, Watt will not support releasing from Conservatorship until Congress addresses the companies reform. Its pure logic as required by a true and dependable inference.
Given that inferences are highly depended on by judges, lawyers and police in many aspects of their job, I feel extremely justified in them as well. They are not to be confused with an unreliable assumption.
And because I feel fully justified in relying on an inference, I do not need Watt to specifically say the words "the Conservatorship should not end until Congress completes housing reform" in order to be able to conclude this meaning from other statements he has made which could have no other concluded logical meaning.
And now just a few of your other points.... --------------------------------------------
"Where (and when) has Watt said, in what has been presented, that release from Conservatorship is not a good idea? "
I never said he said release wasn't a good idea. I said I could infer from his statements that release is not a good idea until reform happens. I still stand by that statement...especially with the new quote posted first in this post.
Thank you! I'll have to watch it when I get a moment.
"Has Watt at anytime suggested that he "does not want to release the Conservatorship as long as he perceives the companies in danger"?"
It can be inferred from everything posted above in conjunction with the statement "we must ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operate in a safe and sound manner." also pulled from the link first posted in this post.
"But rekcusdo, it was stated above that I do need to take his 3 year old comments with a grain of salt."
Haha...I think you meant this as a joke. :) But to be clear, "taking it with a grain of salt" doesn't mean I don't believe it. It just means that I must accept it with a degree of skepticism. That skepticism lies entirely in the passage of time. However, I still do believe it to be a true statement made by Watt in 2014.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
