Krugman slams Rubio's rw Zombie economics

“Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth. … They were opposite of subprime.”[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]


For instance, as George Mason University economist Russ Roberts explains in his paper “Gambling with Other People’s Money”:

Fannie and Freddie bought 25.2% of the record $272.81 billion in subprime MBS [mortgage-backed securities] sold in the first half of 2006, according to Inside Mortgage Finance Publications, a Bethesda, MD-based publisher that covers the home loan industry.

In 2005, Fannie and Freddie purchased 35.3% of all subprime MBS, the publication estimated. The year before, the two purchased almost 44% of all subprime MBS sold.

In addition, lawmakers in both parties enacted policies directed at increasing home ownership rates, resulting in lower mortgage underwriting standards for Fannie and Freddie. Roberts notes that from 2000 on, Fannie and Freddie bought loans with low FICO scores, loans with very low down payments, and loans with little or no documentation





Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . .

Pelican Parts:
Mr. Mozilo and Fannie essentially were business partners in the subprime business. Countrywide found the customers, while Fannie provided the taxpayer-backed capital. And the rest of the industry followed.


Bloomberg 12/21/11 on SEC action:

The truth is that Fannie and Freddie engaged in far greater financial-reporting abuses, which couldn’t have happened without the government’s knowledge and cooperation.
Fannie and Freddie continued to maintain they were adequately capitalized, as did their regulator, until they were placed into conservatorship in September 2008. This farce wouldn’t have been sustainable had the two companies been forthright about their earnings and asset values.

:
WSJ/12/21/11 on SEC action against Fanny Freddie

Fanny degraded its underwriting standards to increase its market share in the sub prime loans... Fanny led private lenders into the sub prime market loans... by the mid 2000's other mortgages lenders developed other similar reduced documentation loans.....Fanny hid the risk of sub prime loans to investors... Fannie said its Alt. A exposure was 11% of its portfolio, when it was closer to 23% - a 341 billion difference...Dallavecchia told investors that Fanny's sub prime exposure was
"immaterial".... we see part of our mission to make mortgages available to people who don't have perfect credit...the Freddie record was similarly incriminating...private lenders could never have done as much harm if Fan and Fred weren't providing tens of billions in tax payer subsidized liquidity to lend on easy terms to borrowers who couldn't[t pay it back...Congress created the 2 mortgage giants as well as their affordable housing mandates.

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this [Fanny Freddie] is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don't want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that's been done here. And that shouldn't be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .
Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week's hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs.[Fanny Freddie] We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.

Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .

Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

Mr. Raines?

Mr. Raines: No, sir.

Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.

* * *
Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.

The Washington Post reported Frank, who is openly gay, had a relationship with Herb Moses, an executive for the now-government controlled Fannie Mae. The column revealed the two had split up at the time but also said Frank was referring to Moses as his “spouse.” Another Washington Post report said Frank called Moses his “lover” and that the two were “still friends” after the breakup.

Frank was and remains a stalwart defender of Fannie Mae, which is now under FBI investigation along with its sister organization Freddie Mac, American International Group Inc. (NYSE:AIG) and Lehman Brothers (NYSE:LEH) – all recently participants in government bailouts. But Frank has derailed efforts to regulate the institution, as well as denying it posed any financial risk. Frank’s office has been unresponsive to efforts by the Business & Media Institute to comment on these potential conflicts of interest.



While the relationship reportedly ended 10 years ago, Frank was serving on the House Banking Committee the entire 10 years they were together. The committee is the primary House body which along with the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) has jurisdiction over the government-sponsored enterprises.



Just a month before, Frank had aggressively thwarted reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated,” a gross miscalculation some five years later with costs estimated to be in the hundreds of billions.


“These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” Frank said to the Times. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

. J. Bridges says:

Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.

For 1996, HUD required that 12% of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be "special affordable" loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area's median income. That number was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28%. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down.
Warren Buffett: "There are significant limits to what regulation can accomplish. As a dramatic illustration, take two of the biggest accounting disasters in the past ten years: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We're talking billions and billions of dollars of misstatements at both places".

Now, these are two incredibly important institutions. I mean, they accounted for over 40% of the mortgage flow a few years back. Right now I think they're up to 70%. They're quasi-governmental in nature. So the government set up an organization called OFHEO. I'm not sure what all the letters stand for. [Note to Warren: They stand for Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.] But if you go to OFHEO's website, you'll find that its purpose was to just watch over these two companies. OFHEO had 200 employees. Their job was simply to look at two companies and say, "Are these guys behaving like they're supposed to?" And of course what happened were two of the greatest accounting misstatements in history while these 200 people had their jobs. It's incredible. I mean, two for two!

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES NYTIMES
Published: September 30, 1999
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Single-Page
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
 
blocking out the screen w/ linkless paragraphs isn't going to change the facts.

from the same link:
When it comes to public policy, though, a sense of context and proportion is important. Tagging Fannie and Freddie as the primary suspects in the mortgage debacle diverts attention from bigger offenders and from policy decisions — such as deregulation in the mortgage market and on Wall Street — that helped create the climate for out-of-control lending.

A spokeswoman for the House Republican Conference, which publishes GOP.gov, did not respond to requests for comment.
 
Last edited:
blocking out the screen w/ linkless paragraphs isn't going to change the facts.

its all in a huge NYtimes bestseller called "Reckless Endangerous". Have you read it??? Has anyone denied the basic numbers in the book??????????

Why not tell us what % of Fanny Freddie were no doc loans??? If you think you know anything???
 
Last edited:
I've read "The Big Short" The Big Short - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and
"Griftopia" Griftopia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was a commercial bank orgy brought to us, in no small part, by the Gramm (R) Leach (R) Bliley (R) Act. Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and so tell us how it was possible without the Fed printing the money
to stimulate the housing market and without Fanny Freddie buying and guaranteeing most of the mortgages mortgages!!!

"Reckless" was written by two NY Times reporters not Marxist anti business libturd fools with absolutely no background in economics
 
F & F were followers w/ the strictest lending standards on the planet Frank. Greenspan was an Ayn Rand acolyte of the "markets police themselves" variety. Krugman nailed Rubio, & by extension, the repubs failed (zombie) econ ideas. Krugman put ANOTHER nail in the Repub coffin ;)

Followers?

Stick to topics you know about because this isn't one of them

FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy | The Center for Public Integrity
“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” says Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth. … They were opposite of subprime.”

Stop listening to stupid people.

F&F set the standard for AAA rated paper; they relaxed the standards for what they rated AAA until it came to "No Income, No Asset"

Guy Cecala is a stupid, lying idiot
 
I've read "The Big Short" The Big Short - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and
"Griftopia" Griftopia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was a commercial bank orgy brought to us, in no small part, by the Gramm (R) Leach (R) Bliley (R) Act. Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and so tell us how it was possible without the Fed printing the money
to stimulate the housing market and without Fanny Freddie buying and guaranteeing most of the mortgages mortgages!!!

"Reckless" was written by two NY Times reporters not Marxist anti business libturd fools with absolutely no background in economics
...and Greenspan, a devotee of Ayn Rand (who is idolized by every college repub in America not to mention the chairman of the Repub budget committee- Paul Ryan (R) :clap2:) was running the Fed.
Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand - The Washington Post
“I give out ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it,” he said. “Well... I try to make my interns read it.”
Stop listening to stupid people.

F&F set the standard for AAA rated paper; they relaxed the standards for what they rated AAA until it came to "No Income, No Asset"

Guy Cecala is a stupid, lying idiot

thats right & commercial banks had defaults at 4 1/2X the rate of F & F who got into the game late trying to play catch up.
 
Last edited:
Greenspan was an Ayn Rand acolyte of the "markets police themselves" variety.

Too stupid but 100% liberal

1) Rand was the greatest advocate in the world for gold standard regulation of the markets!!!!

Greenspan did not run a Gold Standard. How stupid do you have to be not to know that.


2) Markets are designed to 100% police themselves, but of course not when distorted by a huge libturd bleeding heart government much of which was designed to subvert the Republican free market to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford!!!

Now certainly you see why we say , dumb, very very dumb????
Yes markets can police themselves, however not without a lot of damage to those who can least afford it.
 
Greenspan was an Ayn Rand acolyte of the "markets police themselves" variety.

Too stupid but 100% liberal

1) Rand was the greatest advocate in the world for gold standard regulation of the markets!!!!

Greenspan did not run a Gold Standard. How stupid do you have to be not to know that.


2) Markets are designed to 100% police themselves, but of course not when distorted by a huge libturd bleeding heart government much of which was designed to subvert the Republican free market to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford!!!

Now certainly you see why we say , dumb, very very dumb????
Yes markets can police themselves, however not without a lot of damage to those who can least afford it.

too stupid!!! the least among us profit most from the rapid increase in wealth that comes from free markets. Why did you think 125 million slowly starved to death in the liberally regulated markets of the USSR and CHina.

Why did you think the starvation instantly stopped the second China switched to capitalism??

See why we are 100% positive liberalism will based on pure ignorance
 
Followers?

Stick to topics you know about because this isn't one of them

FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy | The Center for Public Integrity
“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” says Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth. … They were opposite of subprime.”

Stop listening to stupid people.

F&F set the standard for AAA rated paper; they relaxed the standards for what they rated AAA until it came to "No Income, No Asset"

Guy Cecala is a stupid, lying idiot

As importantly, FF was the elephant in the room. Even when they had higher underwriting standards and the government guarantee all it did was force all the competition to use lower standards to compete
with FF.
 
which brings us to those bastages at the underwriting houses. they gave the junk that wall street was knowingly packaging, AAA ratings
 
Followers?

Stick to topics you know about because this isn't one of them

FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy | The Center for Public Integrity
“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” says Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth. … They were opposite of subprime.”

Stop listening to stupid people.

F&F set the standard for AAA rated paper; they relaxed the standards for what they rated AAA until it came to "No Income, No Asset"

Guy Cecala is a stupid, lying idiot

This is my favorite...

RealClearMarkets - How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?

The Left will follow him off the cliff...

Something like following Oblamer...
 

Stop listening to stupid people.

F&F set the standard for AAA rated paper; they relaxed the standards for what they rated AAA until it came to "No Income, No Asset"

Guy Cecala is a stupid, lying idiot

This is my favorite...

RealClearMarkets - How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?

The Left will follow him off the cliff...

Something like following Oblamer...

""Zombies, zombies, everywhere. One of the enduring myths of the financial crisis has been the claim that it was the result of (a) Fannie and Freddie (b) the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced poor, helpless bankers to make loans to you-know-who. It's a myth that won't go away - I get asked about it almost every time I give a public lecture - even though it has been extensively debunked." (New York Times, November 2, 2009)

Krugman could not have been more wrong in his assertions. Somehow he missed Fannie and Freddie's acquisition of $4.3 trillion in subprime, low down payment (5% or less) and Alt-A loans. How about the $2.7 trillion of CRA loans? After accounting for overlap among these groupings, he somehow missed some $5 trillion in such loans, trillions of which remain to plague the nation's economy."

Krugman, wrong in the trillion column
 
you people are willingly suffering from your Randian delusions. F & F were late to the game. The commercial Banks had a higher default ratio because they were actively/knowingly constructing junk

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLx2Xc1EXLg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLx2Xc1EXLg[/ame]
 
Last edited:
who was the fed chair during that time and who did he idolize in the 1950's & 1960's? :eusa_whistle: I'll give you a hint: he idolized the same person Paul Ryan (R) idolizes now :lol:

Dear, the Fed chair was a very very powerful goverment official who made typical soviet Solyndra dumb reckless decisions.

Do you have the character and IQ to admit you just got killed?????

So..... is that your way of saying you don't know? :thup: he made those decisions about letting Wall St "police themselves" because he admired the same person Paul Ryan owes his entire tax-payer funded career to. Figure out who it is yet? Here.....I'll help you: Alan Greenspan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

he made those decisions about letting Wall St "police themselves"

Government pushing banks to make home loans to bad risks is letting Wall Street "police themselves"?
 
I've read "The Big Short" The Big Short - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and
"Griftopia" Griftopia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was a commercial bank orgy brought to us, in no small part, by the Gramm (R) Leach (R) Bliley (R) Act. Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was a commercial bank orgy brought to us, in no small part, by the Gramm (R) Leach (R) Bliley (R) Act.

Exactly! Because banks couldn't make bad loans under Glass-Steagall.
 
Too stupid but 100% liberal

1) Rand was the greatest advocate in the world for gold standard regulation of the markets!!!!

Greenspan did not run a Gold Standard. How stupid do you have to be not to know that.


2) Markets are designed to 100% police themselves, but of course not when distorted by a huge libturd bleeding heart government much of which was designed to subvert the Republican free market to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford!!!

Now certainly you see why we say , dumb, very very dumb????
Yes markets can police themselves, however not without a lot of damage to those who can least afford it.

too stupid!!! the least among us profit most from the rapid increase in wealth that comes from free markets. Why did you think 125 million slowly starved to death in the liberally regulated markets of the USSR and CHina.

Why did you think the starvation instantly stopped the second China switched to capitalism??

See why we are 100% positive liberalism will based on pure ignorance
You don't seem to grasp the difference between a state controlled economy, regulated capitalism, and pure capitalism.
 
Yes markets can police themselves, however not without a lot of damage to those who can least afford it.

too stupid!!! the least among us profit most from the rapid increase in wealth that comes from free markets. Why did you think 125 million slowly starved to death in the liberally regulated markets of the USSR and CHina.

Why did you think the starvation instantly stopped the second China switched to capitalism??

See why we are 100% positive liberalism will based on pure ignorance
You don't seem to grasp the difference between a state controlled economy, regulated capitalism, and pure capitalism.

Dummy liberal, do you have a reason for saying that?? Care to share it????????????
 

Forum List

Back
Top