evince
Truthmatters
That was just a cover to fuel an economy that was slumping.
They took the brakes off and let it head straight to short term gain.
It was lack of regulation that prevented it from being stopped.
Goldman and Sacks have great quarter
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
That was just a cover to fuel an economy that was slumping.
They took the brakes off and let it head straight to short term gain.
It was lack of regulation that prevented it from being stopped.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
that is what I said desh... the idiots in DC tried to interfere with the market and they ended up making things worse.
Just as they did when they removed rules put in place that were designed to prevent situations like this from happening.
Bottom line... had the idiots in DC stayed out of it... none of this would have occured. But they changed the rules to make this possible, then kept interest rates low which made it even worse.
Thanks President Clinton.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={815EDA13-ED2C-48B0-91E1-081B9FA26043}
Goldman slips as it sells shares
Investors weigh good report vs possible TARP issue
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. shares fell 6% on Tuesday after the company sold $5 billion of common shares at a mildly dilutive $123 a share.
The company sold 40.7 million shares. Goldman underwrote the offer itself, and said it has an overallotment option to purchase up to an additional 6.1 million shares.
GS plans to use the proceeds, plus "additional resources" to help redeem all of the $10 billion it received last fall under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was designed to bail out key companies after the economy destabilized.
However, that plan to pay back the investment depends on government approval, which could prove touchy for Goldman, the nation's sixth largest bank by assets.
More at link...
Goldman slips as it sells shares
Investors weigh good report vs possible TARP issue
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. shares fell 6% on Tuesday after the company sold $5 billion of common shares at a mildly dilutive $123 a share.
The company sold 40.7 million shares. Goldman underwrote the offer itself, and said it has an overallotment option to purchase up to an additional 6.1 million shares.
GS plans to use the proceeds, plus "additional resources" to help redeem all of the $10 billion it received last fall under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was designed to bail out key companies after the economy destabilized.
However, that plan to pay back the investment depends on government approval, which could prove touchy for Goldman, the nation's sixth largest bank by assets.
More at link...
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
you are right... I should include Barney 'everything is ok at Fannie' Frank, Alan 'I was Clintons bitch' Greenspan, and Chris 'I am in bed with the BAC and countrywide' Dodd.
But it's true. Weird, eh?
No, it's not true. Goldman is dropping because people are looking behind the numbers and are noting that Goldman conveniently orphaned it's huge losses in December through accounting gimmicks and is only reporting a profit due to this and the fact that it has received shittons of government money funneled through AIG.
The government refusing to permit Goldman to repay its TARP loans horseshit, while a cute little story, is garbage.
We'll see if they let them repay the loans then. The sale of the stock is also mildly dilutive to begin with.
You too, huh? Frank, once the Democrats took the House, sponsored and passed the magic bullet regulatory legislation you knuckleheads (with an assist from Kevin Hassett) think would have prevented the global economic collapse.
Superfreak, haven't you learned anything yet? Frank is not culpable for anything.......he's gay and he's a democrat. Don't you get it? No culpability!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Horses were already out of the barn.... Frank says 'well maybe I should shut that door over there'.....
While the horses were leaving the barn.... Frank says 'nuttin to see over here, they ain't uh leavin... everything is all right'
SmarterthanYou
rebel
So you're saying that Frank was totally cool with letting Fannie and Freddie destroy the economy while GW sat in the white house and ONLY passed regulatory legislation once Obama got in the white house? party over country?
That's a good theory, but Frank didn't really get in the way of any regulatory reform that the House considered. He voted to let the bill go out of committee with a statement of reasons why he supported a different approach. You are free to look that up and see what Frank had to say. Of course, that would require some intellectual honesty on your part instead of resorting to "Fannie and Freddie are fine" soundbite garbage.
That bill passed the House in 2005 and a lot of Democrats voted in favor of it. It stalled in the Senate. Once the next Congress was convened, Frank introduced virtually the same bill with changes consistent with his prior position. That bill also passed the House and stalled in the Senate.
In short, your critique is not accurate.
He didn't understand the concept of time when I mentioned this before, I don't expect he'll understand it now.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO... so Frank did not come out in front of the public and tell them that Freddie and Fannie were fine?
He didn't say that?
As for Frank getting in the way of regulations.... I never suggested nor implied that he got in the way of any regulation. So that is simply another idiotic strawman from you. Bottom line... he either lied about Fannie and Freddie or (the more likely) he didn't know what he was talking about and rather than verify he just spouted off on the topic as if he did know.
You are pretending that Frank opposed regulation. What he said is of no consequence. What he did on the regulatory front is what matters. He didn't oppose regulation of Fannie and Freddie per se. He opposed a particular piece of regulatory legislation for a variety of reasons, none of which were that Fannie and Freddie were fine.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: Thursday, September 11, 2003
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
....
The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.
....
''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.
At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.
Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.
After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.
''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.
Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.
....
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
....more at link....
Can you comprehend the comment horse out of the barn? I wonder which side of the lobbying effort Frank was on?
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: Thursday, September 11, 2003
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
....
The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.
....
''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.
At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.
Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.
After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.
''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.
Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.
....
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
....more at link....
Can you comprehend the comment horse out of the barn? I wonder which side of the lobbying effort Frank was on?