Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

merrill

 2008 financial crisis was the proliferation of unregulated derivatives in the last decade. THANKS RECKLESS CONSERVATIVES. Role of Derivatives in Financial Crisis. Deriv owners could no longer afford payments between 2004 and 2006. WHAT COLLATERAL?

Recommended Posts

The real cause of the 2008 financial crisis was the proliferation of unregulated derivatives in the last decade. These are complicated financial products that derive their value by reference to an underlying asset or index. A good example of a derivative is a mortgage-backed security.

 

How Derivatives Work 

Most derivatives start with a real asset. Here's how they work, using a mortgage-backed security as an example

=== A bank lends money to a homebuyer.

 

=== The bank then sells the mortgage to Fannie Mae. This gives the bank more funds to make new loans.

 

=== Fannie Mae resells the mortgage in a package of other mortgages on the secondary market. This is a mortgage-backed security, which has a value that is derived by the value of the mortgages in the bundle.

 

=== Often the MBS is bought by a hedge fund, which then slices out a portion of the MBS, let's say the second and third years of the interest-only loans, which is riskier since it is farther out, but also provides a higher interest payment. It uses sophisticated computer programs to figure out all this complexity. It then combines it with similar risk levels of other MBS and resells just that portion, called a tranche, to other hedge funds.

 
=== All goes well until housing prices decline or interest rates reset and the mortgages start to default. 
 

Role of Derivatives in Financial Crisis 

That's what happened between 2004 and 2006 when the Federal Reserve started raising the fed funds rate. Many of the borrowers had interest-only loans, which are a type of adjustable-rate mortgage. Unlike a conventional loan, the interest rates rise along with the fed funds rate. When the Fed started raising rates, these mortgage-holders found they could no longer afford the payments. This happened at the same time that the interest rates reset, usually after three years. 

 

As interest rates rose, demand for housing fell, and so did home prices. These mortgage-holders found they couldn't make the payments or sell the house, so they defaulted. For more, see Subprime Mortgage Crisis Timeline.

 

Most important, some parts of the MBS were worthless, but no one could figure out which parts. Since no one really understood what was in the MBS, no one knew what the true value of the MBS actually was. This uncertainty led to a shut-down of the secondary market, which now meant that the banks and hedge funds had lots of derivatives that were both declining in value and that they couldn't sell. 

 

Soon, banks stopped lending to each other altogether, because they were afraid of receiving more defaulting derivatives as collateral. When this happened, they started hoarding cash to pay for their day-to-day operations. For more, see 2007 financial crisis timeline.

 

That is what prompted the bank bailout bill. It was originally designed to get these derivatives off of the books of banks so they can start making loans again.

 

It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too. For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a collateralized debt obligations. A type of CDO is asset-backed commercial paper, which is debt that is due within a year. If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a credit default swap.

 

Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants. When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't really expect "conservatives" to understand much of that, do you?

 

Government by reality stars,

reciting bumper sticker slogans,

might get their limited attention spans.

 

But reading and understanding financial details?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, peter45 said:

You don't really expect "conservatives" to understand much of that, do you?

 

Government by reality stars,

reciting bumper sticker slogans,

might get their limited attention spans.

 

But reading and understanding financial details?

If you just say they created "magic money" out of thin air,

they might understand.

 

They won't believe it,

unless Fox tells them it is true,

but,

they might be able to understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hint

 

Look up re-capitalization,

and figure out how that can be used to rob the assets from a company.

 

I just saw about 300 Americans thrown out of their jobs by that scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, peter45 said:

You don't really expect "conservatives" to understand much of that, do you?

 

Government by reality stars,

reciting bumper sticker slogans,

might get their limited attention spans.

 

But reading and understanding financial details?

^^^^^^food stamps running out.....furious, scared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, peter45 said:

If you just say they created "magic money" out of thin air,

they might understand.

 

They won't believe it,

unless Fox tells them it is true,

but,

they might be able to understand it.

^^^^^Tranny surgery gone bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, merrill said:

The real cause of the 2008 financial crisis was the proliferation of unregulated derivatives in the last decade. These are complicated financial products that derive their value by reference to an underlying asset or index. A good example of a derivative is a mortgage-backed security.

 

How Derivatives Work 

Most derivatives start with a real asset. Here's how they work, using a mortgage-backed security as an example

=== A bank lends money to a homebuyer.

 

=== The bank then sells the mortgage to Fannie Mae. This gives the bank more funds to make new loans.

 

=== Fannie Mae resells the mortgage in a package of other mortgages on the secondary market. This is a mortgage-backed security, which has a value that is derived by the value of the mortgages in the bundle.

 

=== Often the MBS is bought by a hedge fund, which then slices out a portion of the MBS, let's say the second and third years of the interest-only loans, which is riskier since it is farther out, but also provides a higher interest payment. It uses sophisticated computer programs to figure out all this complexity. It then combines it with similar risk levels of other MBS and resells just that portion, called a tranche, to other hedge funds.

 
=== All goes well until housing prices decline or interest rates reset and the mortgages start to default. 
 

Role of Derivatives in Financial Crisis 

That's what happened between 2004 and 2006 when the Federal Reserve started raising the fed funds rate. Many of the borrowers had interest-only loans, which are a type of adjustable-rate mortgage. Unlike a conventional loan, the interest rates rise along with the fed funds rate. When the Fed started raising rates, these mortgage-holders found they could no longer afford the payments. This happened at the same time that the interest rates reset, usually after three years. 

 

As interest rates rose, demand for housing fell, and so did home prices. These mortgage-holders found they couldn't make the payments or sell the house, so they defaulted. For more, see Subprime Mortgage Crisis Timeline.

 

Most important, some parts of the MBS were worthless, but no one could figure out which parts. Since no one really understood what was in the MBS, no one knew what the true value of the MBS actually was. This uncertainty led to a shut-down of the secondary market, which now meant that the banks and hedge funds had lots of derivatives that were both declining in value and that they couldn't sell. 

 

Soon, banks stopped lending to each other altogether, because they were afraid of receiving more defaulting derivatives as collateral. When this happened, they started hoarding cash to pay for their day-to-day operations. For more, see 2007 financial crisis timeline.

 

That is what prompted the bank bailout bill. It was originally designed to get these derivatives off of the books of banks so they can start making loans again.

 

It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too. For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a collateralized debt obligations. A type of CDO is asset-backed commercial paper, which is debt that is due within a year. If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a credit default swap.

 

Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants. When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.

 

 

 

=== The Mueller investigative team was granted authority to investigate whatever perceived criminal activity might surface along the way. 

 

An investigative timeline that we the citizens  might want to view from two different excellent investigative  news sources

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/05/a-so-far-complete-timeline-of-the-investigation-into-trump-and-russia/?utm_term=.64723333a760

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/04/exhaustive-history-donald-trump-russia-scandal-timeline/

 

The Trump-Russia scandal—with all its bizarre and troubling twists and turns—has become a controversy that is defining the Trump presidency. 

 

The FBI recently disclosed that since July it has been conducting a counterintelligence investigation into possible coordination between Trump associates and Russia, as part of its probe of Moscow’s meddling in the 2016 election. 

 

 It’s tough to keep track of all the relevant events, pertinent ties, key statements, and unraveling claims. So we’ve compiled what we know so far into the timeline below, which covers Trump’s 30-year history with Russia.  

 

We will continue to update the timeline regularly as events unfold. 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/04/exhaustive-history-donald-trump-russia-scandal-timeline

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Hint

 

Look up re-capitalization,

and figure out how that can be used to rob the assets from a company.

 

I just saw about 300 Americans thrown out of their jobs by that scam.

The "private equity" firm buys the company.

The company gets a NEW set of accounting books.

The ancient 30 year old production lines,

are suddenly worth 75% of BRAND NEW LINES.

 

The "investors" borrow back everything they bought the business for.

They use the phony equipment values as collateral.

They lay off everybody.

They liquidate everything.

They don't get the phony inflated values,

but they make a fortune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry OP, you don't know what youre talking about, you're just parroting left wing propaganda

 

Derivatives have been around for centuries, you can trace them to the middle ages.

Modern derivatives took over after the computer age and after Fischer Black and Myron Scholes published their paper " The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities" in which go Myron Scholes a nobel prize in economics, Black died two years earlier and they dont award dead people the award, anyways my point is because of these two guys and Bob merton came up with the Black–Scholes–Merton model in which Derivatives trade by, its funny since the 70's Derivatives have been traded no regulations and all of a sudden in 2008 they caused major destruction?


can you libs explain that?

 

Or maybe the crash of 2008 was caused by numerous parties .

 

you cant just blame derivatives as they still exist today 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chairmanOFTB said:

Sorry OP, you don't know what youre talking about, you're just parroting left wing propaganda

 

Derivatives have been around for centuries, you can trace them to the middle ages.

Modern derivatives took over after the computer age and after Fischer Black and Myron Scholes published their paper " The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities" in which go Myron Scholes a nobel prize in economics, Black died two years earlier and they dont award dead people the award, anyways my point is because of these two guys and Bob merton came up with the Black–Scholes–Merton model in which Derivatives trade by, its funny since the 70's Derivatives have been traded no regulations and all of a sudden in 2008 they caused major destruction?


can you libs explain that?

 

Or maybe the crash of 2008 was caused by numerous parties .

 

you cant just blame derivatives as they still exist today 

 

 

Loss of confidence.

 

There are lots of financial deceptions that "work",

because everybody decides not to call it crap.

 

Selling things that you don't own works,

unless somebody calls it MARGIN,

and everybody screams and runs.

 

How about a little re-capitalization?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Loss of confidence.

 

There are lots of financial deceptions that "work",

because everybody decides not to call it crap.

 

Selling things that you don't own works,

unless somebody calls it MARGIN,

and everybody screams and runs.

 

How about a little re-capitalization?

 name some 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 name some 

Name some what?

Victims of re-capitalization?

 

Not going to reveal my clients name.

Still billing them for services.

 

Google those offering the services.

Seems to be aimed at people who want to cheat their relatives,

or corporate scum who are ALL in on the deal, to deep six a subsidiary.

 

The poor guy who wound up as CEO,

seemed to be the last person in the musical chair game.

He was actually a fairly nice guy,

but I don't think he had ever seen anything like that, and just didn't expect it.

He had worked his way up the organization.

The perfect "straight man".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Name some what?

Victims of re-capitalization?

 

Not going to reveal my clients name.

Still billing them for services.

 

Google those offering the services.

Seems to be aimed at people who want to cheat their relatives,

or corporate scum who are ALL in on the deal, to deep six a subsidiary.

 

The poor guy who wound up as CEO,

seemed to be the last person in the musical chair game.

He was actually a fairly nice guy,

but I don't think he had ever seen anything like that, and just didn't expect it.

He had worked his way up the organization.

The perfect "straight man".

 

Why would I ask for your clients name? 

I said name the financial deceptions that work? 

 

You are claiming some works, I want you to name some

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 

Why would I ask for your clients name? 

I said name the financial deceptions that work? 

 

You are claiming some works, I want you to name some

 

 

Re-capitalization

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 

 Why would I ask for your clients name? 

I said name the financial deceptions that work? 

 

You are claiming some works, I want you to name some

 

 

SO YOU ARE THE CHAIRMAN OVER THE BOARD??

 

body floating.. chocalate port

 

trumptanic to the rescue??

 

 

I speak in tounges and dance with west virginia sweet hog talking moomas with a face like a gent.. they have poisonous snakes.. geezuuz hell

 

Save Me Joel Osteen!!!  My Credit Card Number is 666*$

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Re-capitalization

what is the problem with re capitalization? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Re-capitalization

Put another rubber on

 

friction is orgasm

 

may the volatility treat you well

 

The Mnuchins are delicious

 

no chaos in Whitehouse.. Donald is the only one left behind.. even Kanye didn;t make the cut

 

 

DJI-Snap-181229.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Re-capitalization

Crap,

my neighbor even did that with his kid.

 

He sold his house to his kid for maybe 25% over the market value.

Somehow got an assessment way over the market.

Kid probably borrowed 100%, and gave it to the parents.

He was such a putz, don't think he even paid the mortgage.

Bank took a loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, chairmanOFTB said:

what is the problem with re capitalization? 

 

 

I described what the "private equity" company did.

 

Borrowed against the "new value",

then liquidated at a loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, peter45 said:

I described what the "private equity" company did.

 

Borrowed against the "new value",

then liquidated at a loss.

Paid themselves what they had borrowed as "bonusses" for their "management".

 

Didn't happen overnight, of course.

Takes a while to commit fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Paid themselves what they had borrowed as "bonusses" for their "management".

 

Didn't happen overnight, of course.

Takes a while to commit fraud.

I consulted to them for about 24 years.

Took about 10 years for them to complete the deception.

A few other financial "re-arrangements" in the period obscure the big picture.

As I has stated, I don't think the CEO had a clue about the big picture.

Probably impossible to prove, and not against any laws.

Should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, merrill said:

The real cause of the 2008 financial crisis was the proliferation of unregulated derivatives in the last decade. These are complicated financial products that derive their value by reference to an underlying asset or index. A good example of a derivative is a mortgage-backed security.

 

How Derivatives Work 

Most derivatives start with a real asset. Here's how they work, using a mortgage-backed security as an example

=== A bank lends money to a homebuyer.

 

=== The bank then sells the mortgage to Fannie Mae. This gives the bank more funds to make new loans.

 

=== Fannie Mae resells the mortgage in a package of other mortgages on the secondary market. This is a mortgage-backed security, which has a value that is derived by the value of the mortgages in the bundle.

 

=== Often the MBS is bought by a hedge fund, which then slices out a portion of the MBS, let's say the second and third years of the interest-only loans, which is riskier since it is farther out, but also provides a higher interest payment. It uses sophisticated computer programs to figure out all this complexity. It then combines it with similar risk levels of other MBS and resells just that portion, called a tranche, to other hedge funds.

 
=== All goes well until housing prices decline or interest rates reset and the mortgages start to default. 
 

Role of Derivatives in Financial Crisis 

That's what happened between 2004 and 2006 when the Federal Reserve started raising the fed funds rate. Many of the borrowers had interest-only loans, which are a type of adjustable-rate mortgage. Unlike a conventional loan, the interest rates rise along with the fed funds rate. When the Fed started raising rates, these mortgage-holders found they could no longer afford the payments. This happened at the same time that the interest rates reset, usually after three years. 

 

As interest rates rose, demand for housing fell, and so did home prices. These mortgage-holders found they couldn't make the payments or sell the house, so they defaulted. For more, see Subprime Mortgage Crisis Timeline.

 

Most important, some parts of the MBS were worthless, but no one could figure out which parts. Since no one really understood what was in the MBS, no one knew what the true value of the MBS actually was. This uncertainty led to a shut-down of the secondary market, which now meant that the banks and hedge funds had lots of derivatives that were both declining in value and that they couldn't sell. 

 

Soon, banks stopped lending to each other altogether, because they were afraid of receiving more defaulting derivatives as collateral. When this happened, they started hoarding cash to pay for their day-to-day operations. For more, see 2007 financial crisis timeline.

 

That is what prompted the bank bailout bill. It was originally designed to get these derivatives off of the books of banks so they can start making loans again.

 

It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too. For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a collateralized debt obligations. A type of CDO is asset-backed commercial paper, which is debt that is due within a year. If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a credit default swap.

 

Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants. When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.

 

Today, the Washington Times incorrectly accused the White House of ignoring warnings of trouble ahead for government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and neglecting to "adopt any reform until this summer," when it was too late.  "Neither the White House nor Congress heeded the warnings, Fannie and Freddie retained strong bipartisan support during the 1990s and early part of this decade."  (Editorial, "Hear, See And Speak No Evil About Fannie And Freddie," The Washington Times, 10/9/08) 

Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.  In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs.  Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

  • April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."  (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

  • May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02) 

2003

  • February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.  


     
  • September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.


     
  • September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."  (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)   


     
  • October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)


     
  • November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk."  To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03) 

2004

  • February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator:  "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator."  (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)


     
  • February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted."  Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04) 


     
  • April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue."  At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages.  I don't think we are in any remote danger here.  This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."  ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04) 


     
  • June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.  Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs:  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System."  (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

  • April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system."  (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)


     
  • July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007

  • August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions.  Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options."  (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)


     
  • August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.  (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07) 


     
  • December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly.  So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission.  The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start.  But the Senate has not acted.  And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."  (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07) 

2008

  • February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully."  (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08) 


     
  • March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08) 


     
  • April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08) 


     
  • May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.  

    • "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes.  Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08) 


       
    • "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes.  And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)


       
    • "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

  • June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)


     
  • July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.


     
  • September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Doddquestions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."  (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2004 we had a republican house and Senate they could of fixed it if they wanted too. Just like the wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...