POP!"...
Posted on 05/23/2006 9:17:32 AM PDT by AdamSelene235
Jamie Gorelick of FBI "Able Danger" and 9/11 comission fame wrote the legal guidelines for Fannie Mae.
She was an ACLU porn lawyer before becoming a Clinton appointee and justice dept official.
... and how much of it he had to kick back and to whom ...
RAINES= Prison
Raines will never join Lay, Kowalski, and the guy from Worldcom as the poster boys for unethical business for one obvious reason. Of course, one is not allowed to say what it is.
You don't think old Franklin kept his? Do you suppose he kept it in his freezer?
This was Democrat (meaning socialist) hacks and operatives who plundered Fanni Mae. Not businessmen.
I looked at the equity to debt ratios and fannie is levered 10 times more than freddie from what I can tell.
May I, in the friendliest way possible, suggest that you read up on the FTCM debacle in 1998 (couple of good books, not to mention an article or two of mine(g!)).
The lesson to be learned here, aside from internal corruption (which, oddly enough, LTCM weren't, they were straight-as-a-string traders until they got in over their heads), is this:
When it comes to portfolios that are heavily involved in high-leverage derivatives, ordinary business school stats such as debt-equity are 100% meaningless. Why? Because neither potential debt nor actual equity can be measured by any 'hard' methodolgy. One must deal (perhaps undesirably) with econometric models, and therefore the solvency of any such enterprise as these is dependent ENTIRELY on the accuracy of the model in use.
If overgearing (over-leveraging, in American English) can kill off an organisation of the smartest men, best traders, and finest theoreticians in the history of the world, then it can and will, one day, kill off a bunch of mediocre MBAs who couldn't find work in the private sectore, and almost surely much more quickly than such a policy killed off the 'smart guys'.
Fan, Fred, and Sal are all in this boat right now, have been for years AND their leverage has grown over the years, not shrunk (as it EFFING SHOULD HAVE, particularly after March 2000). The yield curve is going against them. These were ill-conceived ''quasi-private'' corporations to start, and they all operate under the **assumption** -- nothing written in law at all -- that if they get BIG enough, and subsequently fail, we taxpayers will be on the hook.
Sod them. Fannie was more blatantly corrupt (still is, I daresay), and violated its charter more than Freddie.
And they are both (as is Sallie) far too leveraged to withstand ANY sort of hiccup in their very curious derivatives exposure...absent of course the Regress bailing their sorry asses out with your and my money.
I think we could survive a freddie or sallie hiccup. They are much smaller than fannie. If fannie implodes, it could be the end of the world as we know it, depending on exactly how bad a shape fannie is in.
The pure derivatives damage from a Freddie crash would not sink the economy by itself, you're exactly right.
For some reason, though, you seem to omit from your view the very same 'fear contagion' factor that has infamously pushed even a relatively over-supplied WTI mkt above $70/bbl.
(referring to physical futures mkts)...''Bull markets result from fear. Wildly overdone bull markets feed on themselves and the fear of the market participants that they might not be able to acquire the goods they need in future. When fear rules markets, there is no top end.'' -- SAJ, in Trading Options To Win, John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
He paid off Bill Clinton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.