Goldman and Sacks have great quarter

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

Again you dipshit.... I did not state that he was opposed to increased regulation. I stated that he came out and said the two were fine in the middle of an SEC investigation into Freddie. He stated they were fine even though others were questioning the risk levels being taken at the two.

Quit creating your ignorant little strawman.

 

[Bonestorm]

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?

I comprehend the comment but I don't understand the relevance. What specifically did Frank do or fail to do that you seem to have a problem with?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I comprehend the comment but I don't understand the relevance. What specifically did Frank do or fail to do that you seem to have a problem with?

Specifically, FRANK CAME OUT AND SAID THESE INSTITUTIONS WERE FINE.... YET OTHERS WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THEY WERE TAKING TOO MUCH RISK AND THAT THE OVERSIGHT WAS NOT STRONG ENOUGH.

WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?

you are friggin smarter than this. Enough games. Bottom line, as I stated, Frank pretended he knew what was going on, but the reality was he did not. The horses were out of the barn by the time he took action. Which is what I stated from the beginning.

 

[Bonestorm]

Specifically, FRANK CAME OUT AND SAID THESE INSTITUTIONS WERE FINE.... YET OTHERS WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THEY WERE TAKING TOO MUCH RISK AND THAT THE OVERSIGHT WAS NOT STRONG ENOUGH.

WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?

you are friggin smarter than this. Enough games. Bottom line, as I stated, Frank pretended he knew what was going on, but the reality was he did not. The horses were out of the barn by the time he took action. Which is what I stated from the beginning.

I comprehend all of it. In 2003 when Frank made the statement that you want to hang him with, no one in the Senate or House was doing anything about increasing regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There were a few bills introduced (one by Senator Corzine) but the leadership let them sit there and rot.

Just so I understand your position, you are upset with Barney Frank because he said something that had no effect on anything anywhere. Is that about right? And at the same time you ignore that he didn't do anything to block any regulation when some members of Congress decided to actually try to pass legislation.

And you ignore that voting to report that regulatory bill favorably out of the committee on which he was the minority ranking member while asserting his opposition to the legislation, which did not include the assertion that Fannie and Freddie were fine. If you want to read his actual opposition you can go here (its a large pdf) and go to page 299:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_reports&docid=f:hr171p1.109.pdf

And you also seem to want to criticize Frank for being in the minority party until 2007 which is when he sponsored and passed regulatory legislation.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"I comprehend all of it." I believe you do, which is why your attempts to create strawmen are so funny.


"In 2003 when Frank made the statement that you want to hang him with"
Yes, when idiots in DC speak on topics that they clearly do not comprehend, I am going to mock them for it. Especially when some moron states that there are no problems with Fannie and Freddie WHILE Freddie was under investigation for what????

"no one in the Senate or House was doing anything about increasing regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. " completely irrelevant. I never asserted or implied that anyone else was doing anything in the Senate or House this is simply one of your strawmen. It does not change the absurdity of Franks comments.

"Just so I understand your position, you are upset with Barney Frank because he said something that had no effect on anything anywhere. Is that about right? " No, that is incorrect. It is that he was so blatantly wrong at a time that something could have been done... what was the administrations point at the time according to the NY Times article???? That Fannie and Freddie needed better oversight?

"And at the same time you ignore that he didn't do anything to block any regulation when some members of Congress decided to actually try to pass legislation. "

LMAO... I am not ignoring the fact that Frank did nothing. I never once suggested he did anything to BLOCK legislation... that is simply another of your idiotic strawmen.

"And you ignore that voting to report that regulatory bill favorably out of the committee on which he was the minority ranking member while asserting his opposition to the legislation, which did not include the assertion that Fannie and Freddie were fine. If you want to read his actual opposition you can go here (its a large pdf) and go to page 299:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_reports&docid=f:hr171p1.109.pdf"

Again, I am not ignoring the above, it simply has NO relevancy to his comments about the financial well being of the two firms.

And you also seem to want to criticize Frank for being in the minority party until 2007 which is when he sponsored and passed regulatory legislation.

Who the fuck is criticizing Frank for what he did AFTER the problems blew up? That was my whole point to begin with... not that his legislation was bad, but that it came AFTER the problem had blown up.