Is the FHFA going to cause a new Banking crisis?

atlclgurl

Just Browsing
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
271
Media
1
Likes
0
Points
101
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
You use wikipedia to explain debt refinance schemes! Exactly what is your speciality.

I understand how it works, you idiot, I write lawsuits against the banks! I used wiki as it is easy enough for everyone to understand, even those who pretend to have experience in this arena but don't.

Tell me, have you possibly read about their various accounting controversies?!

I know all about the accounting "controversies", and the "robo-signing" and the lunacy that is MERS and the "pools" that have NOTHING in them, and the paying of so called rating agencies to give cesspoools of "mortgage backed" securities triple A ratings when even an "F" rating (if there were such a thing) would have been a upgrade to what these mortgage pools really were. What's your fucking point?

By the way, FMs? What the hell are you calling FMs? Fannie and Freddie?

Do you know that FMs sell securities?
If by FM's you're referring to Fannie and Freddie... Duh. But it's not their "own mortgages" as they have no mortgages of their own! It's "pass through" securities, they acted as middlemen. Scummy middlemen, yes, but it nothing of their "own".


This shit got traded by EVERYONE involved in mortgages in a major way.

Duh.

The FMs are privately owned.
I don't think you fucking understand. Fannie and Freddie are NOT privately owned and the lawsuit filed by FHFA concerns THEM and ONLY THEM.

WTF does actually making the initial loan have to do with it!
You claimed that "their own loans" were in the MBS Fannie and Freddie sold... but it's not "their own loans" its somebody elses' that they "owned"

FFS don't comment on other's expertise - this is pretty solid territory for me.

I'd hate to see what shaky territory was if that's the case.


If you used a source other than WIKI - like um, their accounts, you'd gain a useful frickin insight.

To help the financially challenged - read this:

Fannie Mae packages mortgages into mortgage-backed securities, which they then resell to investors.


Mortgage-backed Securities - Definition of Mortgage-backed Securities and How Mortgage-backed Securities Affect the Economy

Oh, so "About.com" is a more valid source than Wiki.... riiiight!

Is that simple enough? It really should be. They sold off their own bundled up shit, some of which which got rebundled & sent back!

Clearly you cannot read. From your own link: "Mortgage-backed securities are a bundle of mortgages that have been sold by banks to Fannie Mae, who then repackages them and sells them to individual investors." The pools, once sold to individual investors, did not get pooled again and sold back to Fannie and Freddie. That simply did NOT happen. RBS is in trouble or selling shit loans THEY MADE to Fannie and Freddie.

go & get a decade's worth of international investments, banking, hedge funds & insurance under your belt

I doubt you have ten minutes worth of that experience. Anyone who had would know how these crappy securitizations ACTUALLY worked.

No one cheated anyone in this - each of the multiple counterparties just saw dollar signs & repeatedly passed the parcel, just adding another layer to it.
On this we can agree.
 

atlclgurl

Just Browsing
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
271
Media
1
Likes
0
Points
101
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
For those who are interested, here is a portion of the testimony (before Congress) that Adam Levetin gave in regards to securitization and how it was supposed to work. You can find the entire treatise here:

http://financialservices.house.gov/Media/file/hearings/111/Levitin111810.pdf

The relevant portion about securitization is here:
"First, a financial institution (the “sponsor” or “seller”) assembles a pool of mortgage loans. The loans were either made (“originated”) by an affiliate of the financial institution or purchased from unaffiliated third-party originators. Second, the pool of loans is sold by the sponsor to a special-purpose subsidiary (the “depositor”) that has no other assets or liabilities.
This is done to segregate the loans from the sponsor’s assets and liabilities. Third, the depositor sells the loans to a passive, specially created, single-purpose vehicle (SPV), typically a trust in the case of residential mortgages. The SPV issues certificated securities to raise the funds to pay the depositor for the loans. Most of the securities are debt securities—bonds—but there will also be a security representing the rights to the residual value of the trust or the “equity.”
The securities can be sold directly to investors by the SPV or, as is more common, they are issued directly to the depositor as payment for the loans. The depositor then resells the securities, usually through an underwriting affiliate that then places them on the market. (See Figure 2, below.) The depositor uses the proceeds of the securities sale (to the underwriter or themarket) to pay the sponsor for the loans. Because the certificated securities are collateralized by the residential mortgage loans owned by the trust, they are called residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS).
A variety of reasons—credit risk (bankruptcy remoteness), off-balance sheet accounting treatment, and pass-through tax status (typically as a REMIC19 or grantor trust)—mandate that the SPV be passive; it is little more than a shell to hold the loans and put them beyond the reach of the creditors of the financial institution."
(I removed the footnote numbers for clarity.)

Professor Levetin's credentials are detailed in the first few pages of this report.
 
Last edited:

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
I understand how it works, you idiot, I write lawsuits against the banks! I used wiki as it is easy enough for everyone to understand, even those who pretend to have experience in this arena but don't.

So you're the crank with the green ink?:biggrin1:

By the way, FMs? What the hell are you calling FMs? Fannie and Freddie?

If by FM's you're referring to Fannie and Freddie... Duh. But it's not their "own mortgages" as they have no mortgages of their own! It's "pass through" securities, they acted as middlemen. Scummy middlemen, yes, but it nothing of their "own".

I've never said anything different - learn to read - it will help you with your spurious lawsuits!:tongue:

Duh.

That's your most sensible statement

I don't think you fucking understand. Fannie and Freddie are NOT privately owned and the lawsuit filed by FHFA concerns THEM and ONLY THEM.

Well they were AT THE TIME - & stock is still privately held

You claimed that "their own loans" were in the MBS Fannie and Freddie sold... but it's not "their own loans" its somebody elses' that they "owned"

FFS once you buy someone's loans THEY BECOME YOUR LOANS - hey I bought microsoft shares the other day - of course they're not my shares - because they were someone else's:biggrin1: - Remedial


Oh, so "About.com" is a more valid source than Wiki.... riiiight!

It was simple for numpties - I told you to look at their accounts - &told you the (what I think is -won't commit to that, I'm going from memory:smile:)relevant FASB http://72.3.243.42/pdf/fas134.pdf. You will find it all between the two.

That simply did NOT happen. RBS is in trouble or selling shit loans THEY MADE to Fannie and Freddie.
Which was exactly the same type of shit the FMs were doing - what is there to understand?


I doubt you have ten minutes worth of that experience. Anyone who had would know how these crappy securitizations ACTUALLY worked.

HAHAHAHHAHA! It didn't seem like anyone working on them cared. The FHFA didn't have a fucking clue did they? RBS didn't!


On this we can agree.

I'm afraid that if you look at a lot of the assets, you'll find that most were repackaged from American originating banks - Wells Fargo etc, & rated highly by American credit agencies - Fitches etc.

Fannie & Freddie were both businesses based entirely on the derivatives market, have had repeated problems, with basically the same thing over & over again! They have a long history of incompetence.

I see Strathclyde pension fund lost money on Fannie & Freddie - Can they sue them 1st! Who would pay whom over what to start with - do you go all the way down to the defaulting homeowner!

Then lets start with Jo & Jenny homeless USA - they're the one's who turned toxic - don't forget it.
 
Last edited:

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
As usual the FMs are mismanaging, & cutting their losses at everyone else's expense.

Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac | Foreclosed homes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hold summer clearance sales - Los Angeles Times

All of this waiting to be repackaged AND SOLD TO THEM AGAIN. Now if RBS bought a range, OR mortgaged them out, they'd just send them back to the FMS!!!

You couldn't make it up. But it's happened before!

Dum, dum, dum, dumb, dumb, dumb.

They also outsource their servicing too! Does anyone do any work there?
 
Last edited:

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
Racist? WTF? How did race get into this discussion on economics? I won't bother to reply to your absurd and incorrect and libelous defamation.

I was just wondering how you would react to a similar type of left field accusation.

I wanted to demonstrate your double standards to you. Did I succeed?
 

atlclgurl

Just Browsing
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
271
Media
1
Likes
0
Points
101
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
Then lets start with Jo & Jenny homeless USA - they're the one's who turned toxic - don't forget it.


Nope. The loans were toxic from the very beginning. They were DESIGNED to fail so that the banks could cash in on the insurance they bought (which they called "Credit Default Swaps") often to the tune of 30, 40 and 50 TIMES the "value" of the toxic pool.

Did the individual homeowners get together and collaborate on how to convince the banks to give them money for nothing? No. But the banks sure as shit got together and figured out a way to get homeowners to become the basis for THEM getting something for nothing.

BTW, Fannie and Freddie are PUBLICLY TRADED, not "private companies". In America, that's a PUBLICLY OWNED COMPANY. Privately held ones are one where the owner (s), and only the owner(s), own any shares of their privately held company.

Of course, a sophisticated "banker" would not need to have that explained to them.
 

atlclgurl

Just Browsing
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
271
Media
1
Likes
0
Points
101
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
I was just wondering how you would react to a similar type of left field accusation.

I wanted to demonstrate your double standards to you. Did I succeed?


LOL, I don't have double standards, other people have commented on your distaste for America.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Nope. The loans were toxic from the very beginning. They were DESIGNED to fail so that the banks could cash in on the insurance they bought (which they called "Credit Default Swaps") often to the tune of 30, 40 and 50 TIMES the "value" of the toxic pool.

I'm interested in any proof you have for this which isn't just opinion. Your suggestion that ALL mortgages or even MOST mortgageswere designed this way seems bonkers as hell.

It seems you've read a bit of this, & a bit of that, & made up complete bollocks!


Did the individual homeowners get together and collaborate on how to convince the banks to give them money for nothing? No. But the banks sure as shit got together and figured out a way to get homeowners to become the basis for THEM getting something for nothing.

LOL, lots of them did. Many wee buying multiple properties at a time in the hope of a quick buck - which those who were in & out even a year or 2 before the collapse did! People were going bust on houses they'd bought for just $25,000 in some areas.

It's all a bit of a conspiracy theory to far at the level you've dragged it down to. If you want to say that the artificial creation of billions & trillions was inflationary for house prices - & created monumental stresses - that's a different story



BTW, Fannie and Freddie are PUBLICLY TRADED, not "private companies". In America, that's a PUBLICLY OWNED COMPANY. Privately held ones are one where the owner (s), and only the owner(s), own any shares of their privately held company.

Who said anything about that. I was merely pointing out that it wasn't a state or federally owned institution. Which they basically are now! My point was that private interests benefited - & many of the shareholders ALSO ran lending institutions which then passed on their loans to the FMs.

Of course, a sophisticated "banker" would not need to have that explained to them.

You seem to need everything explained to you.

The point remains Americans initiated ALL of the loans, & American companies initiated the mortgage lending, which then passed through various markets before winding up back at home - where you all started crying it was someone else's fault.

Every country has this problem. Stop whining.:smile: