|
 |
Mar-20-2009Frank Asks Regulator to Pull Fannie, Freddie Bonuses(topic overview)
CONTENTS:
SOURCES
FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
Fannie Mae was taken into Government conservatorship last September along with Freddie Mac, another giant mortgage lender, after making losses of $108 billion last year, mainly on defaulting home loans. The companies have been promised as much as $200 billion in funding by the Government so that they can keep lending to American homebuyers. Their activities are overseen by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. There was outcry this week after AIG revealed that it would pay $165 million in retention bonuses to 400 staff, despite having received more than $170 million in support from the Government. Freddie Mac operates a similar staff retention plan to that of Fannie Mae but is not expected to disclose the amounts paid to its executives until the end of April. Andrew Cuomo, the New York Attorney General, is investigating the bonus payments at AIG and at Merrill Lynch, where he suspects BoA shareholders were misled about the payments, which were paid in December, a month early and weeks before the investment bank unveiled a surprise $15.8 billion fourth-quarter loss. The Attorney General suspects that some of the bankers who received early multi-million dollar bonuses may have been prompted to report larger than usual losses on their trading books as a result, to the detriment of shareholders. [1] Fannie Mae is set to pay retention bonuses totaling at least $1 million over two years to four key executives, according to the company; Freddie has similar plans. Obviously, the dollar amount here is ostensibly far smaller compared to the bonuses paid out by AIG, but it's pretty clear that public tolerance for bonuses at companies being propped up with taxpayer dollars is wearing thin. House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) sent a letter to Federal Housing Finance Agency director James Lockhart, asking him to cancel planned bonuses to executives at both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "I remain very skeptical that retaining and rewarding people who made the mistakes that contributed to the unsatisfactory performance is a good idea," he wrote in the letter. "Further, in this troubled economy, and in this job market, it is difficult to imagine that the companies would not be able to find competent and talented replacements for anyone who chooses to leave." Lockhart, whose agency oversees the GSEs, earlier this week had defended the bonus plans. "We started to design a retention plan with a compensation consultant even before the conservatorship because it was critical to retain their most important asset '''- their employees who are being asked to play a vital role in the nation'''s economic recovery," he said in a statement released Wednesday afternoon.[2]
More financial companies that are being propped up with federal money are facing political heat over bonus payments to executives. Fannie Mae is due to pay retention bonuses of between $470,000 and $611,000 this year to some executives, despite enormous losses at the government-backed mortgage company. Fannie's main rival, Freddie Mac, also plans to pay such bonuses but hasn't yet provided details.[3]
Many company employees lost large sums as the value of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares collapsed when the companies were seized. Many rank and file workers have seen their pay slide as the companies' bonus plan has been pared back, Lockhart said. "The employees now are getting probably fifty percent of what they got in previous years. They're down dramatically," he said. Lockhart also said that he sees a continuing role for mortgage insurance companies that shield Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from some costs of failing loans. Specifically, Lockhart said that he hopes the federal government will give the insurers a capital boost to fortify their balance sheets. "We're continuing to work with them and Treasury and we're hopeful that we can develop a plan that will work.[4]
Fannie Mae's executives receiving bonuses may face the same fire and criticism that AIG and its employees have been under since Sunday, when it news came that AIG was giving more than $165 million in bonuses despite taking $170 billion in bailout loans from the government. Two key senators announced plans this week to impose heavy taxes of up to 90 percent on retention bonuses paid to executives of companies that received federal bailout money or where taxpayers have at least 50 percent equity interest.[5] The remarks come as outrage continues to boil over $165 million in retention bonuses paid about by American International Group (AIG) after it received about $170 billion in government aid. When the government took control of Fannie and Freddie in September 2008, it agreed to pump billions into the firms as needed to keep them solvent. It also threw out their chief executives and boards. By the end of this month, taxpayers will have sunk $60 billion into the firms. Since Fannie and Freddie aren't recipients of federal aid under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, they aren't targeted by new restrictions on executive pay pushed by the Obama administration. Pay has still dropped sharply for many employees at the companies, Lockhart said, with many employees earning half of what they earned before the firms were put into conservatorship. "My view is that we have to be careful and not give excessive compensation," he said.[6]
Washington's bipartisan anger over executive compensation is at a boiling point, thanks to American International Group's (nyse: AIG - news - people ) awarding of $165 million in bonuses last weekend, despite the fact that the company has been granted $170 billion in taxpayer bailout cash. Will either of the measures make it to President Obama's desk for his signature? Hard to say. The chief executive seems ready with pen in hand if they do. Obama says the House bill "rightly reflects the outrage that so many feel over the lavish bonuses that AIG provided its employees at the expense of the taxpayers who have kept this failed company afloat." He wants Congress to send him "a final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated." To critics, it's risky grandstanding that threatens to undermine the main job of the bailouts: shoring up confidence in the nation's banks at an uncertain time. Already, a number of institutions have determined that they'd rather go it alone than face federal interference in their daily operations.[7]
The House will vote today on a bill to levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid "to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money." Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) "said the Obama administration asked him to insert a provision" into last month's stimulus bill that modified restrictions on executive pay and "had the effect of authorizing American International Group Inc.' s bonuses." He said he did not want to make changes to the provision, but "did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG."[8] At AIG, Democrats' Tacit Bonuses Approval May Undercut Rage. The outrage expressed by President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress over $165 million in bonuses paid to American International Group Inc. may be undercut by their tacit approval of the payouts only a month ago. The $787 billion economic stimulus bill approved by Congress Feb. 13 and signed into law by Obama three days later contains language that effectively authorizes bonus arrangements at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts as long as they were in place before Feb. 11. The provision, on page 404 of the 407-page law, carves out those arrangements from new restrictions on pay at bailed-out companies that took effect with Obama's signature. Now Obama and many of the same lawmakers who voted for the law, such as New York Senator Charles Schumer and Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, are demanding AIG employees surrender their bonuses. Dodd told CNN today he put the provision in the final version of the stimulus measure at the insistence of the administration, which was worried about lawsuits if existing compensation contracts were revoked.[3]
By a vote of 328-93 Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a measure that imposes a 90% excise tax on any bonus payments received by employees who earn more than $250,000 annually. It applies to employees of firms having received at least $5 billion in federal assistance, as well as to Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE - news - people ) employees. It's also retroactive, effective as of Jan. 1 of this year. [7] All major compensation decisions are authorized by Fannie Mae's federal regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which created a retention program when the company was seized last September to hold on to key employees. Under the program, employees are eligible to receive up to 150 percent of their salary in bonuses this year, but many will receive far less than that, and some might receive zero, depending on how central they are deemed to the company's task. The Federal Housing Finance Agency didn't immediately supply information on how much in bonuses would be given this year to Fannie Mae employees or whether they would be reevaluated after the controversy surrounding bonus payments at American International Group. Freddie Mac has yet.to disclose its retention payments. It is expected to do so in the coming months, and its payments should resemble those at Fannie Mae.[9] The bonuses were agreed to last year and have been partly paid, but the lion's share is due soon. The Government took over Fannie Mae in September, and as the company teetered on the brink of collapse, it instituted a retention program, making employees crucial to the company's operations eligible for the $US1 million-plus payments on top of their salaries. Freddie Mac, the other mortgage company in a similar situation, has not disclosed its payments.[10]
Freddie Mac has yet to release bonus figures. Frank wrote a letter on Friday to James Lockhart, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government agency overseeing the mortgage firms, urging the agency to use its authority to rescind the bonuses. "I urge you to use that authority now to reconsider the retention programs at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, cease any further payments and recover previous payments under those programs," Frank said.[11]
WASHINGTON (AP) — A key lawmaker is calling on the federal government to cancel retention bonuses for hundreds of employees at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac amid public outrage over payouts to executives at companies receiving federal bailouts. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., asked the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates Fannie and Freddie, to eliminate the bonuses approved for this year and next.[12] Two key senators announced a plan to impose a hefty tax on retention bonuses paid to executives of companies that received federal bailout money or in which the United States has at least a 50 percent equity interest -- including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG. "Millions of Americans are losing their jobs.[13] There were more revelations yesterday of excessive executive bonuses from the mismanaged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, companies at the very heart of the current financial meltdown, and an announcement from Democrats in Congress that 13 of the financial firms receiving bailout money from taxpayers owe more than $220 million in unpaid back federal taxes.[14]
Hobbled by skyrocketing loan defaults resulting from the worst financial crisis in decades, Fannie Mae recently requested 15 billion dollars in federal aid while Freddie Mac has sought a total of almost 45 billion dollars. Fannie Mae disclosed its "broad-based" retention program in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company was only required to disclose the amounts for the top-paid executives, who will pocket at least 470,000 dollars on top of their base salaries.[15] The site, MakingHomeAffordable.gov, is intended to help communicate how the program works and who is eligible -- elements "critical to the program's success," Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan said in a press release. The Making Home Affordable program includes $75 billion in incentives for loan servicers and borrowers intended to help up to 4 million homeowners negotiate loan modifications or short sales with their loan servicers. The refinance component of the program will rely on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to refinance up to 5 million loans they already own or guarantee ( see story ). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have set up Web sites and toll-free hotlines to help borrowers determine whether their existing loan is owned or guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie.[16] Banks were morally pressured by politicians into making home loans to folks who could not remotely qualify under standards set by decades of experience with mortgage defaults. Made by the millions, these loans were sold in vast quantities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There they were packaged, converted into mortgage-backed securities and sold to the big banks. The banks put scores of billions of dollar s worth on their books and sold the rest to foreign banks anxious to acquire Triple-A securities, backed by real estate in America's ever-booming housing market.[17] The refinancing plan aims to help 5 million homeowners who have loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In order to qualify, borrowers must owe between 80% to 105% of the value of their home. They must also be current on their payments, meaning they haven't been more than 30 days late on mortgage payments in the last 12 months. The modification plan aims to help 4 million borrowers who are behind in their payments or are at risk of default. That includes those who are those suffering serious hardships, declines in income or increases in expenses; facing an interest rate hike; having high mortgage debt compared to income; owing more than their house is worth, or demonstrating other reasons for being close to default. For those who qualify, the government would reduce payments to 31% of the homeowner's income, as long as it doesn't reduce the mortgage rate below 2%.[18] The unfortunate failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac brought about a fortunate challenge, that being the task of restructuring the government's role in housing and proving that we learned from our mistake. We can choose to not restructure the two GSE's and hold them on our balance sheets or reintroduce them to the private market. One solution would be to complete the bankruptcy-like process of Fannie and Freddie by breaking the firms into smaller organizations and selling them to existing securitizing firms. This would sever the link between the taxpayer's wallet and the mortgage market. The first hurdle for this plan is getting companies to buy portions of Fannie and Freddie. Every foreclosure that affects their securities comes attached with a direct cost and a write-down for Fannie and Freddie. No one is anxious to gobble up MBS securities because they are no longer easy to sell as they once were. Fannie and Freddie may need to eat their losses on current mortgages securities as they guarantee new ones and hope to curtail their operation as the market recovers and the demand for MBS grows. The second cost is that of regulating banks that will pick up the market share the two GSEs shake off. It would be appropriate for us to limit the growth of individual banks, as a development of a supersized bank is a systemic risk.[19] Frank did not become chairman of the House Financial Services Committee until 2007, and it was not until Democrats gained a majority in Congress that legislation strengthening oversight of Fannie and Freddie passed. During the March 19 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, former MSNBC host Tucker Carlson claimed that the "crisis in mortgages. emanated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," and then asserted: " here are a lot of reasons this crisis began, but one of them was federal pressure to increase homeownership, and Barney Frank was in an oversight position during that process and didn't do a lot to stop it." Frank was not chairman of the House Financial Services Committee until 2007; prior to that, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and failed to pass oversight legislation. It wasn't until Democrats gained a majority in Congress that legislation strengthening oversight of Fannie and Freddie passed. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, in early 2007, as the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank sponsored H.R. 1427, a bill to create the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), granting that agency "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie and Freddie and directing it to reform the companies' business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk. The FHFA was eventually created after Congress incorporated provisions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said were " similar " to those of H.R. 1427 into the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which former President Bush signed into law on July 30, 2008.[20] I voted against the legislation in protest, though I continued to work with Mr. Oxley to encourage the Senate to pass a good bill. These efforts were defeated because President Bush blocked further consideration of the legislation. Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector. They lost market share in the years 2002-2007, as the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded. While Fannie and Freddie were completely irresponsible in their lending practices, the claim that they were responsible for the financial disaster is absurd on its face -- kind of like the claim that the earth is flat. CARLSON: This all began, or partly began, with the crisis in mortgages. That emanated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, right here in what -- right near where I'm sitting right now. Those were overseen by the federal government.[20]
WASHINGTON, March 18 (Xinhua) -- U.S. mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plan to pay retention bonuses to their executives while the government and Congress are seeking ways to strip American International Group executives of hefty bonuses.[15] WASHINGTON, March 19 (Xinhua) -- An outpouring of rage over hefty bonuses paid at bailed-out insurance company AIG and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has put the U.S. government in an awkward position and may even threaten its costly economic rescue plan.[21]
China has lost tens of billions of dollars of its foreign exchange reserves through a poorly timed diversification into global equities just before world markets collapsed last year. The State Administration of Foreign Exchange, the opaque manager of nearly $2,000bn of reserves, started making huge bets on global stocks early in 2007 and continued this strategy at least until the collapse of the U.S. mortgage finance providers Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in July 2008, according to analysts and people familiar with Safe's operations.[22] President Bush signed the Housing Recovery bill on July 30, 2008. This bill gave the Treasury authority to put the U.S. taxpayer on the hook for all of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac'''s bad decisions. Our political leaders believe in capitalism when there are obscene profits that benefit their hand picked cronies, but prefer socialism when it comes to sharing the losses with taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the American taxpayer would end up paying $25 billion for their mistakes, with a 5% chance that it would reach $100 billion.[23]
The Treasury has agreed to provide as much as $200 billion of capital apiece to Fannie and Freddie in exchange for preferred stock. The two companies have said they will need a combined $60 billion of that money to cover their losses so far. Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, asking him to "use every legal means available" to stop $3 billion in previously disclosed retention payments to brokers at the new joint venture being formed by Morgan Stanley and Citigroup Inc.' s Smith Barney unit. "These payouts constitute misuse of taxpayer money and are an insult to hardworking families who are saving every penny," wrote Sen. Menendez. James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA, which regulates Fannie and Freddie, said the bonuses they are paying are "critical" to retain people needed to support the mortgage market and work on foreclosure-prevention efforts.[3] The Treasury has agreed to provide as much as $200 billion of capital apiece to Fannie and Freddie in exchange for preferred stock. The two companies have said they will need a combined $60 billion of that money to cover their losses so far. Lose more than $100 billion, and your company fights to keep you! This is beyond absurd. I haven't seen any reporting on whether these Fannie and Freddie executives have contracts requiring those payments. Regardless, they should follow the lead of some AIG executives and give the money back. It's hard to call it merit pay, by any stretch of the imagination. Or let's put them on the spot. Send those Fannie and Freddie high achievers to California's Inland Empire, or Detroit, and have them explain, in person, to a gathering of former homeowners who lost their properties to forceclosure, exactly why they deserve their big rewards.[24]
AS AIG scrambled to persuade staff to hand back $US165 million ($A245 million) in retention bonuses, another U.S. company that received a federal bail-out ''' mortgage company Fannie Mae ''' announced it intended to go ahead with $US1 million payments to four top executives.[10] AS THE ailing insurance giant AIG scrambled in the face of national rage to persuade staff to hand back $US165 million ($250 million) in retention bonuses, another recipient of a federal bail-out - the mortgage company Fannie Mae - announced it would pay out millions to its executives.[25]
On the heels of the AIG bonus controversy, federally run mortgage giant Fannie Mae "plans to pay four top executives $1 million or more in retention bonuses."[8] Over two years, Fannie Mae plans to pay retention bonuses totaling at least $1 million apiece to four key executives as part of a broad plan to keep employees from leaving.[12] Please answer the following questions: 1) Describe the policy reasons for implementing the Retention Program. 2) Describe any other retention or similar programs implemented by Fannie Mae over the last 3 calendar years and advise me whether or not any individual is currently receiving a bonus that was authorized prior to Fannie Mae being placed under a conservatorship. 3) Describe any alternatives that were considered for achieving the same objectives as the Retention Program. 4) What are the criteria for determining the executive's 'performance' when establishing the amount of the final February 2010 payment? 5) Please provide a list of the names, titles, and position descriptions for each employee to whom Fannie Mae paid bonuses of $100,000 or more in 2008 or whom it may pay bonuses of $100,000 or more in 2009 or 2010. Please include (a) the length of time each such person was employed by Fannie Mae, (b) an explanation why it is critical to retain that particular employee, (c) whether that employee was still employed as of the date of this letter, (d) to what extent the employee has committed to remain with Fannie Mae and for what length of time.[26] Many employees have received significant pay reductions, with no bonuses for 2008 performance and all past stock grants are virtually worthless. This retention program is pay for specific efforts underway now to meet national goals," he said. This Fannie news comes amid the proposal by two key senators to levy a large tax on retention bonuses paid to executives at companies that were bailed out by the federal government or companies in which the United States has a least a 50 percent equity interest.'''' That includes Fannie Mae.[27]
They've never done anything but spend taxpayer money! They're in an organization that can always make money, but are backed by the federal government against losses. I can understand the risk of losing AIG employees - their loss could greatly increase financial losses. As for the Fannie Mae clowns, it seems that they could be replaced in short order. Plus, their business is losing money hand over fist. It doesn't exactly warrant a bonus. If a company loses money, it still pays the bonuses, but they're called "retension bonuses". Don't tell me that congress can't control this one.[9] U.S. Sen. Grassley: Calls on Fannie and Freddie to justify bonus programs amid losses and bailouts 3/20/2009 For Immediate Release Thursday, March 19, 2009 Grassley calls on Fannie and Freddie to justify bonus programs amid losses and bailouts WASHINGTON Senator Chuck Grassley is asking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to account for their retention bonus programs while the entities were losing money and even after they accepted taxpayer-funded bailouts. 'Just as with the extravagant bonus pay at AIG, it's important to make sure that taxpayer support isn't enabling unreasonable compensation arrangements that would never have been possible without taxpayer assistance,' Grassley said.[26] In an attempt to add some supervision, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance, sent letters to Herbert Allison, President and CEO of Fannie Mae, and John Koskinen, interim CEO of Freddie Mac, the two nationalized sub-prime mortgage giants most responsible for the sub-prime meltdown, demanding accountability. Grassley is asking the executives to account for their retention bonus programs at a time when these entities continue to lose exorbitant sums of money after accepting taxpayer-funded bailouts.[14]
The last time I looked there were hundreds of thousands -no, millions- of Americans out of work. What's this explicatory delusion that corporations and government-controlled companies need to give their employees (especially their highly-paid employees) "retention packages?" It's not as if people with good jobs are going to leave them to try to get others jobs in this cruel employment market. The Boston Globe has an intriguing story today about Fannie and Freddie Mac (what a nice couple) giving out retention bonuses to keep hundreds of employees who, they say, might otherwise jump ship. Fannie has already given the cash and also reported on its largesse. Its executive vice president received $611,000 in "retention award" on top of $676,000 in ordinary salary.[28] As noted, in one of the strangest bits of after-the-fact refereeing, some members of Congress now want to enact legislation to tax bonuses. Which company workers get hit by this legislation? All TARP recipients over $5 bnthis gets all the big companies, including the ones that had to take the money at gunpoint from the Treasury, for example,'' JP Morgan Chase (JPM) and Wells Fargo (WFC).'' Winners are American Express (AXP)''and Chrysler who are currently at approximately $4 bn, while GM employees would get hit with this tax.'' It's limited to TARP, so it does not get Fannie and Freddie (the receiver told Congress in September that their CEOs are getting about $1 mn a year and they will be giving out retention bonuses).[29] Facing mid-term elections in 2010, the legislation is an attempt to calm taxpayer outrage over the fact that AIG paid $165 mn in bonuses to 4,600 employees, including many in the financial products unit that lost $40.5 bn last year and whose derivatives caused AIG's collapse.'''' I'm still wondering when U.S. companies will use Credit Suisse's example and pay their worker bonuses in the same toxic debt instruments they cooked up. Or in their company's own stock. Although the numbers are lower for Fannie ($470,000 to $611,000), one of the interesting things to note is that Fannie's chief operating Michael Williams is scheduled to get $611,000 this year this year to stick around (this is atop a similar award of $260,000 in 2008 and his base salary of $676,000 a year).[29]
Apparently there are hundreds of employees in line for retention bonuses of some size. The logic for the payment of these bonuses and the history of how they came to be is the same old song. The companies' regulator, the FHFA, approved the retention bonuses last year, saying they would help the companies keep critical employees at a time when it isn't clear what long-term role, if any, Fannie and Freddie will play in the U.S. mortgage-finance industry. Congress is starting to debate how to restructure the companies and perhaps replace them with new entities. I hope that those in line for this money haven't committed to spend any of it yet.[30] The bonuses were authorized last year by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which seized control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Macin September and ousted the companies' former CEOs. "It was critical to retain their most important asset -- their employees -- who are being asked to play a vital role in the nation's economic recovery," the agency's director James Lockhart said in a statement.[15] WASHINGTON, March 18 (Reuters) - A compensation plan that will dole out bonuses to thousands of Fannie Mae ( FNM.N ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE.N ) employees was fair and well thought-out, the regulator for the mortgage-finance companies said on Wednesday. "I think it's a reasonable and well-thought out plan," James Lockhart, the director for the Federal Housing Finance Agency told reporters at a housing symposium.[4] American International Group, Inc. ( AIG : 1.17 -27.78% ) isn't the only government-assisted corporation to come under fire for the payout of bonuses to employees housing finance giants Fannie Mae ( FNM : 0.722 -25.57% ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE : 0.77 -23.76% ) are taking center stage as this week comes to a close for their own plans to pay out so-called 'retention' bonuses.[2] The outrage was heightened after the government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was revealed to pay bonuses of more than a million dollars to key executives. Over the weekend, AIG paid roughly 165 million dollars in bonuses to its top employees.[21]
AIG is paying out billions of dollars around the world to cover losses on some complicated financial products. Many of these products involve loans that were purchased by two government sponsored entities from banks throughout the United States. These governement sponsored entities are Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.[31] The market accelerated downward, with no possibility for short covering to stop the fall. Hank Paulson forced banks to take billions of taxpayer dollars whether they wanted it or not. This was supposed to bring confidence in the system back. It didn't. The government took over AIG, Fannie Mae ( FNM ), and Freddie Mac ( FRE ), deciding they could run them better than the existing horrible managements. These moves have already cost the American taxpayer a quarter trillion dollars. With many more billions to be poured down these rat holes.[23]
The companies, seized by the government last fall, have received about $50 billion in taxpayer assistance. By including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the measure, legislators fueled feelings of fear and betrayal at those two companies, where some employees polished their r''sum''s and began to call headhunters who had tried to recruit them in recent months.[32]
Fannie and Freddie are at the core of the current economic meltdown. Although they were only recently fully taken over by the government; for much of their existence Fannie and Freddie were quasi-governmental agencies that made no actual home loans. Instead they buy loans from banks, and then bundle and repackage them as securities. For years Fannie and Freddie leveraged their government-sponsored advantages ''' including exemptions from state and federal taxes, lower capital requirements, and the ability to borrow at rates well below those paid by private companies ''' to create a co-monopoly in the housing finance sector. Fannie and Freddie'''s subprime business was not isolated to Countrywide. Fannie and Freddie both bought subprime securities since 1995, and by 2004 they were purchasing $175 billion worth of such securities a year, or 44% of the entire market. From 2003 through 2006 Fannie and Freddie bought more than a half trillion dollars in subprime securities. That is more than any other purchaser in the entire world.[33] Earlier Tuesday, Mr. Frank spoke at a breakfast meeting hosted by the Center for American Progress, a think tank headed by John Podesta, a former aide to President Bill Clinton. He urged housing-related organizations to send him their ideas for reconfiguring Fannie and Freddie, the biggest providers of funding for U.S. home loans. Federal regulators seized management control of Fannie and Freddie in September as heavy losses stemming largely from mortgage defaults ate through their thin layers of capital. For 2008, Fannie and Freddie reported combined losses of about $108 billion, forcing the Treasury to pump in capital to keep them operating.[34]
Four lanes have suddenly converged into two lanes and the drivers are angry. The AIGs of the world went from selling plain vanilla insurance to making bets with every major bank in the world along with guaranteeing risky bets by these same banks. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went from providing liquidity to the mortgage markets so that average Americans could buy a house to a Democratic Party tool used to provide mortgage loans to poor Democratic constituents so they could win more votes in the next election.[23] "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went from providing liquidity to the mortgage markets so that average Americans could buy a house to a Democratic Party tool used to provide mortgage loans to poor Democratic constituents so they could win more votes in the next election" I like the fact that his chart shows that all the increase in mortgage debt as a percentage of GDP occurred during Republican Administrations.[23]
Even if many of the individuals who applied for the loans had no fraudulent intentions, the banks and mortgage lenders were acting on behalf of someone else-your Federal Government. It was the Federal Government, and specifically those pushing the expansion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I implore you to look at those that are screaming the loudest, for it is my belief that they have the most to lose if the truth is discovered. To paraphrase Barney Frank, to leave those who made these mistakes in charge to fix the mistakes is an error. That is what we seem to be doing.[31] Markets won't get back into balance, with prices stable or rising moderately, until some of the surplus inventory, new and resale, is bought up. Some good news on the supply front: The Federal Housing Finance Agency reported that foreclosure sales and evictions fell 77 percent in December because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac temporarily suspended such actions to allow more time for lenders to work on modifying the loans.[35] Freddie Mac in February sold a record $10 billion of three-year notes. It was at the time the largest single new note offering from a government-sponsored enterprise, before Fannie Mae quickly followed with a record $15 billion two-year issue.[36]
Sibling company Freddie Mac is planning similar awards. Fannie Mae disclosed in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it's planning bonuses of $470,000 to $611,000 for four top executives, on top of their base salaries this year.[37] A New York judge ordered Bank of America (BoA) to disclose the recipients of $3.6 million-worth of bonuses handed out to bankers at Merrill Lynch, the investment bank bought by BoA last September. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Fannie Mae said that it would pay Michael Williams, its chief operating officer, $611,000 this year to induce him to remain at the company, on top of his salary of $676,000.[1]
Executive vice presidents Kenneth Bacon, David Hisey, Michael Williams and Thomas Lund will be receiving bonuses of close to half a million dollars each. Bacon supervises community development for the company, Hisey is its deputy chief financial officer, Williams is its COO and Lund oversees the single-family mortgage business. By contrast, Fannie Mae CFO David Johnson received no bonus on top of his salary of $625,000, while CEO Herb Allison received no compensation or bonuses in 2008 or 2009.[13] Kenneth Bacon, David Hisey, Michael Williams and Thomas Lund - all executive vice presidents at Fannie Mae - will get bonuses totaling roughly half a million dollars, apiece. Why is Fannie Mae unloading all this cash on their leaders?'' The Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, James B. Lockhart, says the company needs to give bonuses to keep its execs at the company so they can reverse the effects of the mortgage crisis.[27]
The government-controlled Fannie Mae plans to pay bonuses of at least one million dollars to four key executives in an effort to keep hundreds of employees from leaving the company, according to news reports on Wednesday.[15] Compensation for any company receiving federal assistance should be limited to GS15 on the OPM pay scale. All of these guys are working extremely hard to get Fannie back on track. As a Fannie shareholder, I know I am getting my money's worth from each of them (this from a former employee of the company). This is not like giving bonuses to the guys at AIG, believe me. Someone must have just landed on this planet!!! Don't they know "bonuses" are out, especially when your operation loses hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.[9] Testifying under oath at a congressional hearing on Wednesday, Edward Liddy, chairman and chief executive officer of AIG, called on top-earning employees to voluntarily return at least half of the bonuses. Some employees have already stepped forward to give money back, he said. NEW YORK, March 17 (Xinhua) -- American International Group (AIG), the largest U.S. insurer under water, has become a public spitting target after it revealed a 165-million-U.S. dollar bonus package to its executives. WASHINGTON, March 17 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Tuesday that the troubled insurance giant American International Group (AIG) is to pay back the government for hefty bonuses it paid out to its executives. WASHINGTON, March 17 (Xinhua) -- Lawmakers at U.S. Congress vowed on Tuesday to all but strip executives of the troubled American International Group (AIG) of their 165 million dollars in bonuses.[15] "As the previous senior management teams left, it would have been catastrophic to lose the next layers down and other highly experienced employees," James Lockhart, the agency's director, said in a statement. AIG chief executive Edward Liddy said he had no legal choice but to pay out the "distasteful" bonuses. AIG paid 165 million dollars in bonuses to its top employees after receiving 180 billion dollars in government aid to keep it from going bankrupt. Liddy said he has asked executives who received more than 100,000 dollars in bonuses to repay half the amount and some of them have repaid the entire amount. The move has failed to pacify the wave of anger from both politicians and the public. "I know a lot of you are outraged about this -- rightfully so.[21]
"As the previous senior management teams left, it would have been catastrophic to lose the next layers down and other highly experienced employees," Lockhart said. U.S. President Barack Obama said he will ask Congress to pass legislation giving the administration greater regulatory authority over financial institutions like AIG. He assailed AIG's business practices and the millions of dollars in executive bonuses it paid out even as it was 170 billion dollars in debt to government bailouts.[15]
Amid the public outcry over insurance firm AIG paying $165 million in retention bonuses, the House on Thursday passed a bill to tax bonuses at 90 percent for anyone working at a firm receiving at least $5 billion in bailout aid under the government's $700 billion financial rescue package.[11] Charles Rangel, chairman of the House's the Ways and Means Committee, said Wednesday that the House plans to take up a bill Thursday that would impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to top-earning employees at AIG and other companies receiving big government bailouts. Under this bill, tax would hit employees who are making more than 250,000 dollars a year, the head of the tax-writing committee said.[15] On Thursday House lawmakers voted decisively to impose a 90 percent tax on millions of dollars in employee bonuses paid by troubled insurance giant AIG and other bailed-out companies. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate and President Barack Obama quickly signaled general support for the concept.[12]
'''We go far beyond AIG, Citibank, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and others,''' said committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat. '''This is not going to happen again, the light is flashing and letting them know that America won't take it.''' The legislation wouldn't attempt to impose the tax on foreign employees of companies such as AIG, said Ways and Means Committee spokesman Matthew Beck.[3] The bill would also apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and legislation considered by Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) would also affect the mortgage firms. The two companies had put in retention plans before the government took them over, but Frank said he was not swayed by their plans.[11] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased 73 percent of all mortgages originated last year and are the key players in the Making Home Affordable plan designed to help millions of homeowners.[2] There are two separate parts to the plan: a refinancing initiative and a loan modification plan. The refinancing plan will allow some homeowners to convert their mortgages into lower-cost, 30-year or 15-year fixed-rate loans, by making mortgage giants Fannie Mae ( FNM, Fortune 500 ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE, Fortune 500 ) refinance those home loans that they back.[18]
Like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac is a government-sponsored finance company created to encourage home ownership by lowering mortgage rates.[15]
What we would like to see some genuine outrage over are the millions of taxpayer dollars going to executives at the taxpayer owned companies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The damage they caused the entire economy goes far beyond the losses on their balance sheets.[33] When will the insanity stop???? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failed companies. NO ONE at these institutions should be getting "retention" bonuses! These guys were either part of the failure or brought in to help fix it. I think that 200,000 is sufficient income for ANYONE. If these execs don't like that, then leave! There are plenty of financial people without jobs who would be happy to fill the slots.[9] I guess you see what you want to see. DID I SAAAAY THAAAT? From 2003 "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.''[23]
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac couldn't generate audited financial statements for 5 years before the housing boom. They were criminally incompetent and run for the benefit of their Democratic benefactors in Congress. You honestly believe they could lose HUNDREDS of BILLIONS due to a general decline in housing prices that ROBERT SHILLER clearly pointed out was a huge bubble to anyone who would listen.[23] Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he hopes to introduce legislation later this year to restructure government-backed mortgage investors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.[34] Both House and Senate versions of legislation to tax bonuses single out District-based Fannie Mae and McLean-based Freddie Mac by name.[32] Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are good hen houses with terrible farmers running them, and the new landlord is a snake, so I think even the eggs are going to get eaten before Uncle Sam gets the wiser. Don't expect any different from role players until Uncle Sam wakes up, but I think he's still sipping the gin of election euphoria.[33]
Holdings of securities issued or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rose $990 million to $813.0 billion in the latest week.[38]
Just as with extravagant bonus pay at American International Group, it is important to ensure that taxpayer support is not enabling unreasonably generous compensation arrangements that would have never have been possible but for taxpayer assistance. Although Freddie Mac has not released the amount of payments made under its Retention Program, payments mandated under Freddie Mac's Retention Program are undoubtedly among the expenses leading to a $50.1 billion loss in 2008. Considering Freddie Mac's lackluster performance in 2008 and shortage of funds for the coming year, it should carefully consider all expenditures, including those expenditures relating to executive compensation.[26] Payments mandated under Fannie Mae's Retention Program are among the expenses leading to a $58.7 billion loss in 2008. The Retention Program has already paid out to four executives a total of $880,000, is set to pay another $2,068,000 to these executives in 2009, and a third 'performance-based' payment of $1,452,000 to these executives in 2010. Considering Fannie Mae's lackluster performance in 2008 and shortage of funds for the coming year, it should carefully consider all expenditures, including those expenditures relating to executive compensation.[26] At least four Fannie Mae executives are slated to receive more than $400,000 in bonuses each this year as a result of the company's government-approved retention program, The Post's Zach Goldfarb reports.[9]
In the wake of the AIG uproar, mortgage giant Fannie Mae intends to pay four of its top executives retention bonuses ranging from $470,000 to $611,000, according to its SEC filing in February. The troubled mortgage lender's executive vice presidents Kenneth Bacon, David Hisey, Michael Williams and Thomas Lund will receive those bonuses.[5] Fannie Mae will pay its top executives retention bonuses of up to $611,000, the state-controlled mortgage lender and guarantor revealed yesterday amid the furore over compensation at AIG.[1] NEW YORK (CNN) -- Troubled mortgage giant Fannie Mae planned to pay four top executives retention bonuses ranging from $470,000 to $611,000, according to a February SEC filing.[13] Fannie Mae is set to pay retention bonuses, with some top executives at the mortgage giant planning to receive more than $1 million.[11] WASHINGTON (AP) — Fannie Mae is planning to pay retention bonuses of as much as $611,000 each to several top executives of the government-controlled mortgage finance titan.[37]
Buyers may not have owned a home for the past three years to qualify as "first time" buyers. They must also live in the house for at least three years, or they will be obligated to pay back the credit. Administration officials stress that they are not using taxpayer money to bail out irresponsible homebuyers, but the eligibility requirements do not preclude borrowers who knowingly bought homes they could not afford from benefiting from the government programs. "Some borrowers presumably knew what they were getting into," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress. "Part of the issue was mortgages that should not have been made and lenders did not take sufficient responsibility. in many of these situations we have to trade off the moral hazard issue against the greater good." Some observers also say the $75 billion plan may not go far enough: It does virtually nothing for the unemployed, who often don't have enough income to make any reasonable monthly payment affordable. [18] I was particularly pleased to see that the details of the plan allow refinancing up to a current balance of $729,750. Borrowers in this group are statistically least likely to default. Since the government is already on the hook for these loans, it makes sense to make them affordable, thus slowing down the foreclosure rate. Unlike the modification plan, this refinancing is not temporary. Therefore it's important that the borrower be able to afford the payments now and in the future. That has been the sticking point for many of these borrowers. Under this program, the loan can go as high as 105 percent of the appraised value of the property. This change is a key to the program. It reflects the realization that dropping home values in a neighborhood don't make a borrower less likely to pay on time. For borrowers in Atlanta, the increase in maximum loan amount from $417,000 to $729,750 means that many more credit-worthy borrowers will now be able to refinance and lower their monthly payments significantly. While I am aware that there are many neighborhoods in metro Atlanta with an average loan amount in excess of these numbers, those are the exception not the rule.[39]
I think this mess really started with the clinton admin when he declared by ececutuve order that all people had the right to own a house, and declared the banks would make loans. It was never stated that these persons should be able to repay these loans. The federal gaovernement would back these loans so do not worry about loseing when they default. I beleive the last time I checked clinton was a dem, just like obama, both liberals and socialists at heart. I wonder when the American people will wake up and see where thsi country is headed and on a down hill slope???? Will we the people stand up and demand from these people that they work for the good of all, not just a few. We have to take back our governement and stand by the constitution that has kept us in good standing for years, We can no longer stand by and let the dems keep up these give away programs and make people believe that the government will see to all of our needs. All this junk by obama is just going to pile debt on this country for generations to come, and expand the federal government to greater lengths. These programs that that bail out has started will never end if people do not stand up and demand that obama and the dems stop.[33] Clearly, no one had ever read. The President signed this bill into law, and then the President said he didn't know what was in it. Obviously, they didn't read it either." I asked about the Republican efforts to subpoena AIG and Geithner records and communications in relation to this scandal, and if there was yet any evidence of a quid pro quo as Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd and then Sen. Barack Obama were the two largest recipients of AIG campaign cash last year. Boehner told me, "That's what we're trying to find out." In a HUMAN EVENTS exclusive interview yesterday with House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), we discussed efforts by Republicans to hold accountable those who have been at best negligent in their bailout oversight roles. "The American people really are beginning to have some buyer's remorse on what they've done," Cantor said. "And I also believe that it's important for this system to have checks and balances. Clearly over the last several months this administration's been here and this crowd's been in charge, there's been no check and balance. The way this place has been run, the lack of transparency, they have lacked accountability, and I believe the American people are waking up to that." As we watch this daily unfolding of TARP fund mismanagement and negligence, this should serve as a warning to all Americans: when the Obama administration tells you that they are capable of oversight of the massive programs they propose like nationalized health care, look at this shining example of their ability to oversee the 470 financial institutions that have been handed hundreds of billions of taxpayer bailout dollars.[14]
In the heated public environment, the news of more bonuses ''' and ones the federal Administration clearly countenanced ''' will add to the political firestorm the Obama Administration is now battling. President Barack Obama went on the front foot, telling journalists he had no intention of trying to quell taxpayer anger over the $US165 million in payments to the very executives at AIG who got the company into highly risky credit default swaps. "I think people are right to be angry," he said.[10] In a letter, Frank urged Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James B. Lockhart to rescind any bonuses already paid under the program and to prohibit any further payments. "The public, having provided significant support for the purpose of restoring trust and confidence in our country's financial system, rightfully insists that large bonuses such as these awarded by institutions receiving public funds at a time of a serious economic downturn cannot continue," Frank wrote in the letter. The move comes after $165 million in bonuses paid to employees at American International Group Inc.' s (AIG) financial products division set off a political firestorm this week.[40] A bill by the chamber's top tax writers, Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, would levy a 70% tax--paid equally by employee and employer--on top of the regular income tax paid on any cash bonus above $50,000. It would affect the bonuses of large banks that received federal bailout money in excess of $100 million, as well as Fannie and Freddie.[7] The tax would apply to employees at companies that have received more than $5 billion from the government including Fannie and Freddie. Read full coverage.[2] The House on Thursday approved legislation to tax at 90% any bonuses earned by employees earning more than $250,000 at firms that have received at least $5 billion in aid from the government's financial rescue program.[40] U.S. House Democrats plan a vote tomorrow on a measure to impose a 90 percent tax on executive bonuses paid by American International Group Inc. and other companies getting more than $5 billion in federal bailout funds.[3] The move comes amidst news that U.S. House Democratic leaders have set a vote for today on a proposed 90 percent tax on executive bonus payments by companies receiving more than $5 bn in federal bailout funds.[29]
"We have to continue managing our business as a business, taking account of the cold realities of competition," Mr Liddy told the House financial services subcommittee. He said a failure to pay the bonuses ran the risk of a staff exodus. Mr Liddy told the committee he had kept the Federal Reserve informed about the bonus payments as soon as he found out about them, shortly after he took over in October, and that he had sought legal advice about whether the contracts could be rewritten or avoided, and was told they could not. Mr Liddy, who ran a rival insurance company before he retired, took over as AIG's chief executive in October at the request of the Government. He receives no salary. His family has received a wave of death threats as a result of the bonus payments, even though they were negotiated before his arrival and he has sought ways to unwind them.[10] During the afternoon it emerged that key Democrat senator Chris Dodd had inserted provisions into the bail-out legislation that created a loophole to preserve golden parachutes and retention payments. In a statement, Senator Dodd said: "I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment, but I did so at the request of Administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG. Let me be clear ''' I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week." AIG chief executive Edward Liddy told an angry Congress that he asked staff in the financial products group to return at least 50 per cent of their retention bonuses and that some had offered to return 100 per cent of the bonuses. In evidence to the committee, Mr Liddy said he found the company's controversial bonuses "distasteful", but necessary because of legal obligations and to protect the future of the the insurance giant bailed out by U.S. taxpayers, and which is now 80 per cent owned by the Government.[10]
When it is time to blame, we point at executives at AIG, who agreed to stay on at the company for retention bonuses. To force them to work without the pay they were promised amounts to modern day slavery. You may not have any empathy for people who earn such bonuses, but had they already left the company, AIG would have an even bigger mess on their hands.[31] Having learned the insurance giant and bailout recipient AIG would pay $165 million in bonuses to executives, Frank grumbled that the company was "rewarding incompetence." "These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever." No, they don't.[41]
Fannie Mae has received $US15 billion in taxpayer assistance and has said it will probably need more. Its chief operating officer, Michael Williams, is in line for a $1.3 million bonus; the deputy chief financial officer, David Hisey, is slated for $US1.1 million, and executive vice-presidents Thomas Lund and Kenneth Bacon are each in line for $1 million. [25] Fannie Mae, which suffered $US59 billion in losses last year, has received $US15 billion in taxpayer assistance, and expects to need more.[10] Sister company Fannie Mae lost even more last year, with $58.7 billion of red ink.[42]
The bonus plan is part of a retention program instituted by the government when it took over Fannie Mae and wanted to keep '''employees deemed crucial to the company's efforts to carry out government housing plans."[8] As Congress races to claw back bonus payments at firms taking government bailout cash, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) on Friday called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to cancel payments at the mortgage giants now under government control.[11] I wish I had the power to force the Republican leadership to do my bidding! If I had had that power, I would have used it to block the impeachment of Bill Clinton, to stop the war in Iraq, to prevent large tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, and to stop government intervention into the private life of Terri Schiavo. That power eluded me, and I was unable to stop those things. According to the Republicans' misty memories of the period before 2007, I allegedly singlehandedly blocked their determined efforts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and my supposed intransigence literally caused the worldwide financial crisis.[20] As described in the most reputable published sources, in 2005 I in fact worked together with my Republican colleague Michael Oxley, then Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, to write a bill to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.[20]
In July, that man swore up-and-down that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were " fundamentally sound." That man was wrong on both counts. That man was Rep. Barney Frank. Given that we cannot "reward incompetence" and employees "don't have a right to their jobs forever," one wonders when Mr. Frank plans to resign.[41] Summary: Tucker Carlson claimed that the mortgage crisis "emanated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," and asserted that one of the "reasons this crisis began. was federal pressure to increase homeownership, and Barney Frank was in an oversight position during that process and didn't do a lot to stop it."[20] Neither does one of the men partly responsible for the mortgage meltdown that precipitated the need for the bailout. That man helped block the Bush administration's effort in 2003 to rein in federal mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which helped precipitate the major mortgage meltdown.[41]
In the cases of AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, however, there is no question where the money will come from.[42] N ew rules that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac recently published governing their upcoming mass refinancing campaign are more favorable than expected. While early reports indicated that the program would only cover owner-occupied primary residences, guidelines released this month say second homes and small rental properties will also qualify.[43] Freddie Mac spokesman Brad German said helping owners of second homes and one- to four-unit investment properties avoid foreclosure can "stabilize neighborhoods and housing markets." For instance, German said, letting apartment owners refinance their mortgages can "help reduce renter evictions by putting landlords in a (more-affordable) refi that improves their chance of success." Fannie and Freddie's program aims to help 4 million to 5 million U.S. homeowners refinance into cheaper mortgages that consumers can't normally qualify for because their property values have plummeted.[43]
Richard Syron, CEO of Freddie Mac, took home $58.1 million over the same time frame. In the last year, stockholders of these '''fine''' institutions lost $98 billion. They should be appreciative of the tax loss carry forwards they can use for decades.[23] Fannie has requested $15.2 billion in government aid, while Freddie has asked for nearly $31 billion in additional aid on top of the $13.8 billion it received last year.[37] Fannie and Freddie, which together have received $60 billion in taxpayer funds under a separate government program, are covered under the legislation. A similar bill is gathering momentum in the Senate.[40] The CBO estimated in January 2009 that the governments' takeover of Fannie and Freddie had a present value cost to the U.S. taxpayers of approximately $240 bn.'' This was before the Obama administration further expanded the role of the GSEs in the housing market (arguably creating even more risk to the taxpayers by expanding the limits of lending by these entities to the same type of crummy borrowers who caused the entities to have to go into government receivership in the first instance).''''''''''[29]
The text of Grassley's letters to the government-sponsored enterprises is below. March 19, 2009 Herbert M. Allison, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer Fannie Mae 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016 Dear Mr. Allison: As Fannie Mae is currently under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), U.S. taxpayers have a substantial interest in its operational decisions. Taxpayers should see their tax dollars applied in a manner that will provide them with as optimal a return as possible.[26] Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa United States Senator Ranking Member of the Committee on Finance March 19, 2009 John A. Koskinen Interim Chief Executive Officer Freddie Mac 8200 Jones Branch Drive McLean, Virginia 22102 Dear Mr. Koskinen: As Freddie Mac is currently under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), U.S. taxpayers have a substantial interest in the operational decisions. Taxpayers should see their tax dollars applied in a manner that will provide them with as optimal a return as possible.[26]
Freddie Mac has a similar retention plan in place, but has yet to disclose how much money top executives are in line to receive. Both companies were seized by federal regulators last fall.[37]
OK Congress - now that you are going after AIG- go get bonuses back from Fannie May and Freddie Mac while your at it - right after you give up your $4,000 + raise you gave yourselves.[9] The WSJ reports that Fannie and Freddie are set to pay bonuses to executives of from $470,000 to $611,000.[30]
I know when I upset both the right and left in the same article, I've done my job. You can't seriously tell me that Fannie Mae has not been a Democratic tool for their social agenda of having everyone own a house, whether they can pay or not? Franklin Raines? Here is a link to a previous article I wrote about Fannie before you and I had the pleasure of owning them and their $200 billion of losses.[23] In July, former Fed governor William Poole said that Fannie Mae was technically insolvent. Their shareholder equity was $35.8 billion at the end of 2007. It plunged by $23.6 billion to $12.2 billion as of March 31, 2008. If their balance sheet had been marked to market as of June 30, 2008, they would have been insolvent. Congress passed this plan but provided absolutely no mechanism to pay for these future commitments.[23]
NEW YORK, March 18 (Reuters) - Fannie Mae ( FNM.N ) ( FNM.P ) on Wednesday said it sold $1 billion in bills at interest rates that were lower compared with sales of the same maturities a week ago.[44] On March 11, Fannie Mae sold $1 billion of three-month bills at a 0.300 percent stop-out rate and $1 billion of six-month bills at a 0.580 percent stop-out rate.[44] Fannie Mae said it sold $500 million of three-month benchmark bills due June 17, 2009 at a stop-out rate, or lowest accepted rate, of 0.220 percent and $500 million of six-month bills due Sept. 16, 2009 at a 0.515 percent stop-out rate.[44]
In late 1990's, Frank Raines, former CEO of Fannie Mae predicted that by 2003, Fannie and Freddie would buy back 50 percent of the mortgage market. At that point, the government sponsored enterprises's market share in conventional mortgages did not seem conducive to a 50 percent ownership of the entire market by the next half-decade. Peter Wallison, of the American Enterprise Institute, and others correctly predicted that Fannie and Freddie would have to move from its sector of designation to generate that growth.[19] How can the Obama administration want to tax AIG bonuses and give Fannie Mae bonuses? I cannot understand, one is the private sector and another government.[9] Obama says people shouldn't get bonuses for running the businesses in the ground. What did these people do for Fannie Mae? Sounds like a government cover up already for the Obama administration.[9]
Your beloved government leaders shuffled in and out of Fannie Mae raking in millions in bonuses.[23]
Fannie Mae is dishing out the cash - to its executives. The troubled mortgage company planned to shell out bonuses to four of its top execs, according to a filing from the Securities and Exchange Commission in February.''[27] Fannie Mae's chief executive, Herbert M. Allison, did not receive any salary or retention payments. He received $60,000 in compensation related mostly to reimbursements.[9] "Because I am concerned with maximizing taxpayers' investment in Fannie Mae, I am requesting (1) the official documents outlining the Retention Program and any other bonus compensation arrangements; (2) records of any communications related to the formation and implementation of the Retention Program and other bonus compensation arrangements; and (3) any contracts that have been executed in accordance with the Retention Program or other bonus compensations arrangements that would bind Fannie Mae to making bonus payments in the future."[14] The payments are "relatively small" and cover a broad swath of employees, Lockhart said. In the case of Fannie, the retention program covers about 5,000 people, he said. "I think it's a reasonable and well thought-out plan," he said.[6] The retention payments to Fannie's COO (Michael Williams) would have been covered but the Treasury regulations do not apply to Fannie and Freddie.'' It will be interesting to see if Rep. Barney Frank excoriates the Fannie / Freddie employees the way he did the AIG employees, especially because it can be argued that Fannie and Freddie were even more damaging to U.S. taxpayers.''''''[29]
The government seized control of Fannie and Freddie in September and installed new chief executives. After the takeover, regulators designed a bonus program designed to encourage workers to stay at their jobs. "It was critical to retain their most important asset — their employees — who are being asked to play a vital role in the nation's economic recovery," James Lockhart, the agency's director, said in a statement earlier this week.[12] Freddie and Fannie are no longer private entities. They should be nationalized, and their employees should be paid on the government's wage scale. It is the starkest kind of bullshit to assert that talented people won't work for such peanuts. By the time this little "correction" is over, a six-figure, recession-proof job in government finance with ironclad benefits and job security will look like the Golden Ticket it damn well is. I know this offer doesn't sound so hot for the Masters of the Universe just yet. Their help won't be missed in the short, medium or long term, and this "correction's" got a long, long way to go.[28]
Like AIG, Fannie and Freddie were taken over by the U.S. government last year after posting massive losses.[29] The president expressed "complete confidence" in Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and his economic team, which has come under harsh attacks over the handling of AIG. According to lawmakers, the U.S. government is trying to repair a loophole in legislation last year that failed to prevent such huge bonuses. The House of Representatives were to vote Thursday on a bill to levy as much as a 90-percent surtax on bonuses at bailed-out companies such AIG.[21] WASHINGTON, March 2 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. government's latest aid to the troubled insurance giant American International Group (AIG) is critical, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday. NEW YORK, Mar. 1 (Xinhua) -- American International Group Inc. (AIG) will receive up to an additional 30 billion U.S. dollars in federal assistance as part of the latest revamp of its government bailout, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.[15] WASHINGTON, March 16 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday blasted insurance giant American International Group and pledged to try and prevent it from giving its executives 165 million dollars in bonuses after taking billions in federal bailout funds.[15]
The AIG, which is now 80-percent owned by the U.S. government, lost 61.7 billion dollars in the fourth quarter of 2008, marking the largest corporate loss in history. The financial strapped company distributed 55 million dollars in December and 165 million dollars had to be paid this month.[15] Harry Markopolos laid the the whole Madoff scam out 9 years ago and the government did ZIPPO. Let's allocate another $700 billion of my tax dollars to bumbling fools. They own AIG but are outraged at what AIG is doing. HELLO, you own them.Who oversees all of these agencies.[23]
I would rather spend $60 billion dollars to shut down Fannie and Freddie completely. It would be the only TARP money well spent to date.[3] Fannie recently requested $15 billion in federal aid, while Freddie has sought a total of almost $45 billion.[12]
Only a quarter of Freddie's red ink, or about $13 billion, comes from mortgage-insurance woes. The firm took a larger hit from its investment in mortgage-backed securities tied to subprime, adjustable-rate or jumbo mortgages. By law, Freddie isn't allowed to insure against losses on those types of mortgages, in part because they are riskier. It bought securities tied to those home loans anyway - which it is allowed to do - to capture the higher rates of return that those mortgage bonds offered.[42] The increase in mortgage debt was done by unregulated financial companies making poor loans, not Fannie and Freddie. They got in trouble because of the general decline in housing values, which they were not prepared for.[23] I mean, give me a break. What are these people thinking? That's part of the problem. They're not thinking." Fannie and Freddie serve a crucial role in keeping the housing market liquid, giving banks and lenders the ability to sell the loans they make in order to have the funds to make additional loans to consumers. The companies, trying to meet the competing interests of the greater market and their shareholders, began to buy up risky subprime loans, which were generally made without income verification.[13] The bomb continues to tick. Fannie would tell the local banks, make the loans, don'''t worry we will buy the mortgages, bundle them and sell them to the bad evil people on Wall Street, like Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers and AIG.''[45]
In an October 2008 New York Times article, Daniel Mudd, the previous CEO of Fannie Mae, was said to have been under pressure during the boom of the market. His clients, the mortgage originators, who were gaining size and power, demanded that the GSEs absorb more complicated loans or the clients would use other securitizing firms or sell directly to the secondary market.[19] The NY Times article of 9/30/99 says the Clinton administration is pressuring Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on sub prime loans, in other words loan money to people with low credit who live in red line areas.[45] The banking crises started with the passing of Community Reinvestment Act'' passed by Jimmie Carter. This Act created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack, which were to push sub prime loans. At that point the Time Bomb started to tick.[45]
A. You are seeing pricing that has been a part of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac'''s pricing for some time.[46] March 20 (Reuters) - The following is a list of scheduled U.S. agency bill sales from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for 2009.[47] Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae created many of the now infamous products that have lead us to where we are today.[31] Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and FHLB each said the dates below are windows of optional note issuance.[48]
Fannie Mae reported a loss of $58.7 billion for 2008 and has requested another $15.2 billion from the U.S. Treasury.[14] Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae, took home $46.7 million in compensation between 2003 and 2007.[23] The benefit would only be available to borrowers whose loan balance was less than the Fannie Mae maximum loan amount of $417,000.[39] WASHINGTON -- Fannie Mae said the volume of mortgage loans it refinanced in.[43] The bill was reintroduced in 2007, but Fannie Mae had powerful friends, Senator Dodd, who received a sweetheart loan from Fannie.[45]
A spokesman for Fannie Mae deferred comment on the bonuses to the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[13] The bonuses were approved last year by the Federal Housing Finance Agency after bailing out Fannie and Freddie in September.[21] Before taking over as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank worked with then-committee chairman Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have established the FHFA to replace the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight as overseer of the activities of Fannie and Freddie. After voting for the bill in committee, Frank voted against final passage of the bill on the House floor, stating that he was doing so because an amendment added to the bill on the House floor imposed restrictions on the kinds of nonprofit organizations that could receive funding under the bill.[20] Frank & Dodd are shills. Democratic Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, chose to blame short-sellers for Fannie and Freddie'''s problems when he made the following statement on April 25, 2008.[23]
Now the generous paychecks are proving politically touchy as lawmakers and the public alike seethe over roughly $165 million in bonuses paid out last weekend by bailed-out insurance giant AIG. The public "rightfully insists that large bonuses such as these awarded by institutions receiving public funds at a time of a serious economic downturn cannot continue," wrote Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. The letter dated Thursday was released by his office Friday.[12] Many employees have received significant pay reductions, with no bonuses for 2008 performance and all past stock grants are virtually worthless." House Democrats on Thursday passed a bonus-blocking bill that would discourage the use of funds at major financial institutions, by imposing a 90 percent tax on such bonuses.[2] "Many employees have received significant pay reductions, with no bonuses for 2008 performance, and all past stock grants are virtually worthless," said Federal Housing Finance Agency director James Lockhart. "This retention program is pay for specific efforts under way now to meet national goals."[10] Under the program, a broad swath of employees at each firm were promised bonuses, to be delivered over three periods. Lockhart defended the bonuses this week, saying the program ensured the companies wouldn't lose key employees just as they play a central role in stabilizing the U.S. housing market. "As the previous senior management teams left, it would have been catastrophic to lose the next layers down and other highly experienced employees," Lockhart said in a statement earlier this week. "This retention program is pay for specific efforts underway now to meet national goals."[40]
Many employees have received significant pay reductions, with no bonuses for 2008 performance and all past stock grants are virtually worthless. This retention program is pay for specific efforts underway now to meet national goals," he said.[13]
Fannie's and Freddie's regulator established a retention program when the companies were taken over by the government last fall. [40] Fannie and Freddie collectively received more government assistance than AIG (more than $200 bn committed to each GSE versus approximately $173 bn committed).[29] The government entity in charge of the receivership of Fannie and Freddie told lawmakers in September 2008 that the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie would likely get in excess of $1 mn ($900K in salary plus bonus).''[29]
Between 1989 and 2008, Fannie & Freddie contributed $165,400 to Mr. Dodd'''s re-election campaigns. "This is not a time to be panicking about this. These are viable, strong institutions," Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said at a Capitol Hill press conference. "The economics are fine in these institutions and people need to know that," Dodd said. There's no reason "to talk about failure," he added. "These two institutions are fundamentally, fundamentally strong," Dodd said.[23] The issue of risk and capital management has to be considered. Around this time last year the capital requirements of Fannie and Freddie were lowered from 30 to 20 percent in a mad dash to given Fannie and Freddie some breathing room.[19] Fannie and Freddie are also suspending rules requiring purchase of often costly private mortgage insurance (PMI) when borrowers have less than 20 percent equity in homes.[43] There is that den of thieves at Fannie and Freddie who massaged the politicians with campaign contributions and walked away from the wreckage with tens of millions in salaries and bonuses. There are the idiot bankers who bought up securities backed by sub-prime mortgages and were too indolent to inspect the rotten paper on their books.[17] Some people involved in the debate have called for turning Fannie and Freddie into cooperatives owned by mortgage lenders. Others have suggested making them public utilities, which would involve very tight regulation and limits on their return on equity. Anthony Sanders, a finance professor at Arizona State University, recommends leaving Fannie and Freddie intact but subjecting them to better regulation and requiring them to hold more capital. He also suggests barring them from holding large amounts of mortgages and related securities. That would leave the companies to focus on creating and guaranteeing mortgage securities that would be held by others.[34]
In 1991, following the Savings and Loan disaster, Heritage pushed for the full privatization of Fannie and Freddie, predicting that ''' maintaining secondary mortgage firms in a twilight zone between the public and private sectors ??? may be a recipe for an eventual taxpayer bailout.'''[33] March 18 (Reuters) - The following are scheduled sales announcement dates for potential Freddie Mac benchmark notes, Freddie Mac reference notes and REMICs, and Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) global note offerings in 2009.[48] Last week mortgage giant Freddie Mac said it had lost $50 billion in 2008 alone.[42] Freddie Mac reported a loss of $50.1 billion for 2008, and has requested an additional $30.8 billion from the U.S. Treasury.[26]
Since Freddie continues to lose money and is now part of the government, the likelihood that it will have to pay taxes anytime soon is probably nil. Add up all those items, and it becomes apparent that the government will probably spend more than $100 billion in additional funds cleaning up the mess at Freddie.[42] According to a report in USA Today, "In securities filings, Freddie said it will pay a retention award of $1.5 million to Executive Vice President Michael Perlman by March 2010. Perlman, whose base salary is $500,000, already collected $300,000 of his bonus.[14] Chief operating officer Michael Williams is due for a $US1.3 million bonus, deputy chief financial officer David Hisey is down for $US1.1 million, while executive vice-presidents Thomas Lund, responsible for the mortgage business, and Kenneth Bacon, responsible for housing and community development, are each in line for $US1 million.[10] The executives include chief operating officer Michael Williams ($611,000), deputy chief financial officer David Hisey ($517,000), and executive vice presidents Thomas Lund ($470,000) and Kenneth Bacon ($470,000). Each of these executives earned about $200,000 in retention payments last year and salaries ranging from $385,000 to $676,000.[9] Seventy-three AIG executives received retention payments of $1 million or more recently, according to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.[3] The news of more bonuses - and ones that the Obama Administration clearly countenanced - will stoke the political firestorm it is now battling. The President, Barack Obama, went on the front foot, telling journalists he had no intention of trying to quell taxpayer anger at the payments to AIG executives who got the company into highly risky credit default swaps.[25] Perhaps the Obama Nation can explain or set the example by returning the $101K in campaign contributions that ABC news reports it received from AIG. No wonder they waited until AFTER the bonuses were given to express outrage.[9] No performance, no bonus. That is how it is supposed to work. Obama and his incompetent administration knew about the AIG bonuses and gave them another $30 billion anyway.[9] Where was the outrage from Frank when Freddie announced a $28 billion loss last week? Dodd is a filthy scunbag liar. He said he knew nothing about the AIG bonus clause. HE LIED. He put it in the bill. It is a talking point.[23]
Freddie has requested much more: almost $45 billion. Its retention bonuses will, then, probably be larger.[28] For 2008, Fannie and Freddie reported combined losses of about $108 billion, largely stemming from a surge in home-mortgage defaults.[3] A global financial meltdown has caused interest rates to plummet. That resulted in a $15 billion loss for Freddie from its hedges.[42] Interest rates have dropped dramatically after the Federal Reserve announced in November it would buy up to $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities in an effort to bolster the long-suffering housing market.[5] The Federal Reserve yesterday committed to double the purchase of mortgage debt and buy treasuries. This move by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke shows he's willing to pump as much cash into the economy to avert a slide into depression and end the economic crisis. The Fed will buy up to $300 billion of long term treasuries and more than double its mortgage debt purchases to $1.45 trillion to keep mortgage rates lower.[5]
AIG is covering up something bigger than we know. The U.S. Government has been sending billions and billions to AIG not because they are good guys. Had AIG started to say no to these claims based on fraudulent loans, there would be no way that we would have gotten bills passed in Congress to attempt to rewrite loans and change principal amounts and mortgage rates.[31]
The company now owns about 30,000 homes. Maintaining these houses costs about $3,300 a month each, and that comes on top of the loan loss, which is typically about one-third the size of the mortgage.[42] As you can see, home values fall but the debt remains the same. With at least another year of falling home prices, the number of people underwater on their home mortgages will reach 25 million, or one-third of all the houses in the United States.[23]
Our banks will collapse again if congress cannot act fast enough too rid the companies it basicly owns but dosen't accept the responsibility of the true problem (upper management). In some countries the honorable end for them would be a stomach full of samuri sworlds, but the upper management of these companies our not accepting their failure at buisness and have the ordasity to spend my (our) charity money by refurbishing their offices to the tune of 10 million each.We are still buying houses which we cant live in and cars we cannot drive, 10 million dollar offices we will never see and money we will never see in our treasury again. It is the same old story again stealing our money and giving to the campaign contributors. Moby dick was a minnow when this country was founded, but eventually he too was impaled by a harpoon just as we are about to recieve eventually if we dont get out and spend some money. Who wants to give up their life jacket at a time like this. (not me).[30] The answer to your question probably is that the 'messiahs' is taking care of all the judges, lawyers, congressmen, etc. to keep them silent, like he did to his relatives in Kenya and else where. He tried to shut Dr. Corsi but, he could not do it. The Dr. has documents that can't be denied, like the Odinga's phone calls, the 3 visits to White House and the $1 million campaign dollars he got for Odinga's campaign for his election in Kenya.[33]
"Make sure that we fix these messes, even if I don'''t make them.''' How old is this guy? It's like you've got a 12 year old running the White House. He and his demagogue congress are obviously playing loose and fast with taxpayer dollars. It's time this president gets a grip of reality.[33]
All 470 firms have not yet been vetted. At the time Geithner was head of the New York Fed and acting as the architect of the bailout structure, he was actively participating in serial tax evasion himself. Firms applying for bailout funds were merely required to sign paperwork stating they had paid all of their federal taxes, ironically the same honor system that Geithner used to avoid paying his income taxes. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), chairman of the House subcommittee tasked with bailout oversight, announced the unpaid tax circumstance to reporters but did not reveal the names of these institutions receiving the bailout funds who are tax delinquent, citing that it was illegal for the committee to do so. "It's shameful, it's a disgrace," Lewis said to reporters. On the AIG bonus scandal front, Republicans yesterday were again warning about the dangers of rushing through Congress massive legislation such as the Democrats did with their "stimulus" bill without giving members of Congress and the public time to actually read the bills.[14] Our best hope is the rage continues and Republicans get some new found backbone to block all further bailout efforts. Looking ahead, Dodd facing fresh political firestorm for his role in this fiasco. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm. Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward ''' after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. '''We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill,''' Dodd told CNN's Wolf Blitzer this afternoon. '''But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.''' Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill.[3]
Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) are also now joining in the hypocrisy. Inhofe, for example, said this week, "The AIG situation is clear evidence of what happens when you shovel money out the door with no strings attached and no transparency." While Inhofe today demands that federal bailouts come with "strings attached," he expressed the opposite view in February when he asked, " s this still America? Do we really tell people how to run, and who to pay and how much to pay?" Similarly, former Speaker Newt Gingrich yesterday penned an op-ed venting his "outrage" at the " fat bonuses " paid to staffers at AIG. However in November, Gingrich scoffed at the idea of capping salaries specifically at AIG, remarking, "You have a level of micromanagement of AIG and others. You can't apply Washington bureaucratic rules to a free market company without ultimately destroying the company."[8]
Wow, bonuses for the folks at Fan and Fred. Does Congressman Barney Frank get a bonus, too? After all, if it weren't for him protecting these jokers from more regulation and his failing to rein in their loan practices, all this housing meltdown probably wouldn't have happened. He's kept it all alive. Maybe they'll contribute to Barney's next campaign. I'd just like to remind everyone that those folks who, through no fault of their own, have been laid off because of this financial meltdown, are paying taxes on their unemployment checks so that these overpaid, underworked clowns can get their "retention bonus." If that doesn't shame our legislators, they have none. You can't throw money around and give a person back his dignity.[9] If you listen carefully to Timothy Geithner (Treasurer of the United States and Head Tax Cheat), you will hear that the same model that was used to push housing to bubble levels, is going to be used to get loans flowing to businesses. As soon as businesses make loans, the Federal Government is to buy those same loans from the banks, so that the banks can take that money and loan it out again. Dodd and Frank hope if they scream long enough we will become fatigued on this topic, and their roles will be forgotten.[31]
In yet another problem with Treasury Secretary and TurboTax cheat Timothy Geithner's structure of bailouts as head of the New York Federal Reserve, it was disclosed Thursday that at least 13 of the 470 financial firms receiving bailout money from taxpayers owe more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes.[14]
"Just as with extravagant bonus pay at American International Group, it is important to ensure that taxpayer support is not enabling unreasonably generous compensation arrangements that would have never have been possible but for taxpayer assistance," Grassley wrote. Grassley is seeking the names of any of the firms' employees receiving a bonus of at least $100,000 and wants an explanation of why the companies felt it necessary to retain those specific employees.[11] Interim CFO David Kellermann will get an $850,000 bonus, and Senior Vice President Michael May will get $700,000." "Just as with the extravagant bonus pay at AIG, it's important to make sure that taxpayer support isn't enabling unreasonable compensation arrangements that would never have been possible without taxpayer assistance," Grassley said.[14]
Some AIG employees have returned bonuses amid the public clamor. Among them was Douglas Poling, who received the richest payment of more than $6.4 mn.[29] As Fannie Mae said, the bonuses were necessary to retain key employees which were "essential to ensure our viability through 2010."[21] I'm angry. What I want us to do, though, is channel our anger in a constructive way," he said. That was before the Fannie Mae payments became public. It has also emerged that a key Democrat senator, Chris Dodd, had inserted provisions into the bail-out legislation that created a loophole to preserve golden parachutes and retention payments.[25] The three-month bills were priced at 99.944 with a money market yield of 0.220 percent, and the six-month bills were priced at 99.740 with a money market yield of 0.516 percent, according to Fannie Mae.[44] The Fannie Mae form is at www.fanniemae.com/homeaffordable, and the company is accepting calls at (800) 732-6643.[16] Fannie Mae, etc, increasing their exposure to low income borrowers was pushed by GWB as part of his "ownership society".[23]
One element of America's current decline involves the housing market and Fannie and Freddie Mac. [19] We just didn't realize how huge that bailout would be. Back in California, Obama told his audience : "We're going to do everything we can to fix it. For everybody in Washington who's busy scrambling, trying to figure out how to blame somebody else, just go ahead and talk to me, because it's my job to make sure that we fix these messes, even if I don't make them." President Obama did not create the Fannie and Freddie disaster, but he is not fixing it either. Instead of learning from the disastrous consequences of Fannie and Freddie's market distorting housing interventions,''the Obama Administration is doubling down by making Fannie and Freddie a center piece of their housing plan.[33]
Congress wanted Fannie and Freddie to aid the Department of Housing and Urban Development by helping low to middle income families.[19]
The Fannie bonuses are still considerable and come at a time when Fannie and Freddie are receiving increasing amounts of funding from the Treasury.[24] TheHill.com - Frank asks Freddie, Fannie to halt bonuses returns style object // given a string containing the id of an object // the function returns the stylesheet of that object // or false if it can't find a stylesheet.[11]
Even though Freddie by many measures is smaller than Fannie, the problems at Freddie will probably end up costing more. In those cases it's not clear who will take the hit - shareholders, bondholders or the government.[42] Freddie and Fannie were taken over by the government and put into conservatorship last fall.[42]
Our hope is that just by making U.S. financial support available, we'll quiet the fears and eliminate any need for that support. Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, former candidate for President, revealed his grasp of the situation on July 11, 2008 when he strongly defended the financial condition of Fannie & Freddie.[23] President Obama and Democrats in Congress passed a $787 billion pork filled calamity that will contribute to an explosion of our financial system. Very little of this socialist's dream will help the U.S. economy in 2009.[23] Here's a look at what the government is doing and who is being helped. The Obama administration unveiled its $75 billion Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan earlier this month.[18] AIG is to date the most expensive corporate bailout in American history, requiring $180 billion in government funds. It may soon have competition.[42] Because that's the real problem here. The system would be working just fine if it weren't for this bonus problem. ??? How about the billions of taxpayer dollars laundered through AIG and paid to Goldman Sachs and European banks?? Talk about an American public that has suddenly become penny wise and pound foolish.[30]
Until we put the blame for this mess where it belongs the problems will never go away. It is the people we elect and send to Washington, DC that has caused, perpetuated and promotes the stealing of public tax dollars. Until the people in this country finally use their brains in the voting booth NOTHING will change. Why not? Like AIG employees, they too have a right to their share of blame in wrecking the World Economy with irresponsible risk management. They need to be compensated accordingly.[9] The Senate is readying a separate measure that would impose a 70 percent excise tax on the bonuses, split between the company and employee. That tax would be collected from foreign workers by making the company responsible for paying the employee's 35 percent excise tax if the levy couldn't be collected using normal withholding in place under existing tax treaties, according to a description released yesterday by the Senate Finance Committee. The bonus decision '''may jeopardize our ability to get the majority of this Congress to support further largess, to provide funds, to prevent a recession, depression or meltdown,''' Representative Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat who heads the capital markets subcommittee, told Liddy today.[3] "Many employees have received significant pay reductions, with no bonuses for 2008 performance and all past stock grants are virtually worthless," the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, James Lockhart, said.[25] Speaking to a crowd of 1,500 supporters in Costa Mesa, California, about the bonuses given to employees of 80% taxpayer owned AIG, President Barack Obama said : "I know a lot of you are outraged about this.[33] Frank also wants employees to repay bonuses from last fall, after the two companies were placed under government control.[12] There are always jobs for employees that have a list of faithful customers. "Huge" is a rather subjective adjective isn't it? $600K isn't that large for a CEO of a company that size when compared to the corporate world: IBM, Pfizer, GE etc. The board members coudl work in similar roles in these companies without the media scrutinty & pressure.[1]
Local videogame company Big Huge Games' shift in focus to stay relevant in the Wii era does not appear to have paid off. Game publisher THQ said this week that it will shutter its Timonium, Md. -based subsidiary if it doesn't find a buyer for the studio within 60 days. The California-based publisher acquired Big Huge last year, but is now trying to slash its expenses by $220 million.[32] Top-paid executives, reports the Globe, will have taken home at least $475,000 on top of base. This year's bonuses are twice what they were last year.[28]
I think an important detail glossed over by Randy is that the first loan of $440,000 is interest only. If she does refi the loan, it won't be to another interest only loan, but a fully amortized 30 year fixed. Her payment now is $1,970 per month. Supposing she could refi to a 4.5% rate, her new payment (fully amortized) would be $2,229 per month, $259 more.[46] Lenders can receive as much as $6,000 in direct incentive payments if a loan is modified and the borrower stays on track for at least three years.[39]
The current value of my home (considering the decrease in value over the year) is approximately $600,000. A. Loans greater than $417,000 are called jumbo-conforming and they have different rules.[46]
Freddie lost $1 billion more on bonds tied to short-term loans made to Lehman Brothers.[42] Wave goodbye to another billion. When will the red ink at Freddie stop? It's hard to say. In its most recent annual report, the company said that if it had to mark all its assets to the price similar bonds are trading for in the market, the company's net worth would sink by an additional $65 billion.[42] In a painful stroke of irony, there is a $15.4 billion line item for deferred taxes on the asset side of Freddie's balance sheet. That means Freddie is still hoping to claim $15 billion in write-offs against future profits.[42]
Freddie's bottom-line woes may run even deeper. Freddie has $38 billion in losses it has yet to acknowledge in its investment portfolio.[42]
In an effort to lure new buyers, $6.6 billion of the economic stimulus plan enacted in February will go toward refundable tax credits of $8,000 - or 10% of the home's value - for first-time buyers.[18] Despite all the layoff announcements recently, I am definitely hearing more chatter about home buying, mostly from (still-employed) first-timers who stand to benefit from the new $8,000 tax credit.[35]
I have news for our worlds smartest president. I can take $500.00 dollars and get his wife a Union card. Why do you think the Unions want all the stimulus work done under a PLA? They can charge illegal immigrants $500.00 for a union card so they can work on the job. They will also recieve all the union benefits to put in thier trust funds and then tell them they are not illegable to recieve them because they are not a citizen. Where do these Politicians live? They need to go out in the real world.[33]
Rival mortgage finance company Freddie Mac is planning similar awards, but has yet to detail which executives will benefit. [12] Freddie Mac's Web site for troubled borrowers is www.freddiemac.com/avoidforeclosure and calls are accepted at (800) 373-3343. Borrowers can also apply for help from their mortgage servicer by submitting details about their financial situation using an online application form at HopeNow.com, the Web site operated by an alliance of mortgage servicers and nonprofit counselors, or by calling the HOPE NOW hotline, (888) 995-4673.[16]
The company may opt to skip issuance and will provide notice either before or on the scheduled announcement date. -- Freddie Mac will provide relavant transaction information on announcement dates. -- Freddie Mac will announce on the first working day of the month whether it plans to use the optional issuance window, and when relevant, confirm the timing of when it expects to issue a Reference REMIC security. -- FHLB will state the specific maturity and size of the offering on the announcement dates.[48] The company's next scheduled note announcement is on March 25. In this year's funding calendar, Freddie Mac has some months when it has one issuance window and others with two potential sales periods.[36]
NEW YORK, March 18 (Reuters) - Freddie Mac said it would not issue new reference notes this week, opting to skip the first of this month's two issuance windows.[36] Late last year, the Bush administration negotiated a security agreement -- or " withdrawal accord " -- with the Iraqi government, mandating that all U.S. troops exit the country by 2011. Last month, President Obama announced his own plan to speed up that process, ordering two-thirds of U.S. forces to redeploy by Aug. 31, 2010.[8]
With the federal government spending 2-3 trillion dollars in the next 2 years, why are we obsessed every minute of the day by a few millions? I am sure the justice of the matter will be resolved. This Press frenzy started when Obama was so shocked by it all.[45]
Fannie also gave $42,116 per year to Senator Obama, more than any other senator.[45] I have to believe that a CEO basically appointed by the government to run AIG for $1 per year must seriously owe someone in the government one huge favor.[31] What is in the news.Congress beats up on an AIG executive that congress pulled out of retirement to serve as a salary of $1.00 per year.[45] At AIG, the senior executive officers (the top decision-makers) took a $1 salary and no bonus for 2008 and 2009.''[29]
Topic: Government Regulation AIG-A Scape Goat of Massive Proportions There's something a little foul smelling surrounding AIG. I think you probably smell it as well. We keep getting all of these diversionary issues, such as bonus payouts to executives the company needed to keep? Is this an attempt to fan the fumes away so that we do not look to closely.[31] "I'm absolutely committed to ensuring that we have the tools we need to prevent the kinds of abuses that sent AIG spiraling," Obama said. "We've got to make sure that we've got regulations that don't allow companies to take these huge risks that are so big that they can sort of hold us hostage," he said. Obama has to keep the bonus anger from undermining his efforts to pass his record 3.5-trillion-dollar budget to pull the economy out of a deep recession. The administration has come under harsh criticism that the rescue plan is too costly and could still fail to serve such purposes as creating enough jobs and spurring economic growth.[21]
The GSE stockholders saw the introduction of larger loans as new markets for profit, and subprime loans as a means to bring in more revenue but with a higher risk level. This growth period came before the burst set back all the growth made during the housing booms, putting a heavy burden on both companies.[19] The refinancing portion of the administration plan can only help the current slow housing market in the Atlanta area. The second, and perhaps more ambitious, part of the president's plan revolves around enticing lenders to voluntarily modify existing loans for homeowners who are in imminent danger of losing their home. Under this plan, borrowers would see their interest rates temporarily drop to as low as 2 percent, in an effort to make their total housing expense fall under a 31 percent of gross monthly income cap. When this plan was announced, I wondered what would happen to those borrowers for whom the 2 percent loan was still above the 31 percent threshold.[39] One of the early surprises was the scope of the refinancing plan. In case you haven't been paying attention, this part of the program is aimed at responsible homeowners who would like to refinance to today's low interest rates but are prevented from doing so due to falling home values. We had originally been told that only "conforming" loans would qualify for this departure from conventional "loan to value" guidelines.[39] There will be additional insurance payments to holders of modified loans linked to declines in local home prices. The amount of those payments is still unclear, as it may relate to how many lenders choose to participate in the modification program. What happens to lenders who simply refuse to refinance or modify a borrower's loan under the president's plan? At this moment, it looks like Congress is set to allow bankruptcy judges the ability to modify loan terms and balances when they see fit. Such unprecedented powers strike fear in the heart of lenders everywhere. My guess is that most lenders will jump on the "stability and affordability" bandwagon and take their medicine as quickly as possible.[39]
A new government Web site includes online tools that can help troubled borrowers determine whether they are eligible to participate in the "Making Home Affordable" loan modification and refinancing program.[16]
We were not satisfied (we being the politicians) with the traditional model of banking. In the eyes of the politicians, we were not making enough loans to people that they felt should be able to live the American Dream, even if they could not afford it. And, according to their logic, if housing prices keep rising, a 100% loan to value of the property would drop to 80% in just 12 months with a 20% rise in home values.[31] Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity. Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France, and Japan None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people. When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German- American or the Irish-American.[33]
Personal responsibility and self reliance had forever been the hallmarks of the American population. Since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created and the Federal income tax was implemented, Americans have been slowly and insidiously made dependent upon the government and criminal bankers running this country. Government has taxed and borrowed to implement policies and programs that make people more dependent on them and increased government's control over our lives.[23] In addition to the eventual phasing out of government guarantees of conventional mortgages accompanied by responsible regulation, the housing market will need other improvements. Those can include development of more efficient and profitable public and private housing programs and a sense of social responsibility that has developed in other industries. Those who are fighting to live the American dream depend on it.[19]
The mortgage giant has already received $14 billion in government aid.[42] After a fourth-quarter loss of $24 billion, the company said it needed an additional $31 billion from the government to keep the lights on.[42]
In 2008, Freddie lost $50.1 bn - more than the approximately $42 bn the company made between 1971 through 2006, notes economist Edward Yardeni.[29] Three executive vice-presidents at the company will receive between $470,000 and $517,000 each.[1] Oh hell no! Any executive working for a company that received taxpayer bailout money gets a bonus if they can last a round in a boxing ring with a taxpayer.[9] What is the bonus for, getting money from the taxpayers. Just what kind of performance did these executives have to get bonuses? This is stupid, but it has been going on for years.[9]
In Nevada they allready are in unions having been sold out many years ago, when you make it better here than in Mexico for them the choice is easy. Let the taxpayer pay for it and hide hide the costs to the people we give these free loaders free medical, bank accounts, education and they are even allowed to steal college slots from our citizen children as they can't ask if you are here illegally. Hell they get benefits us citizens can't even get, also accourding to the gov accounting office there are 40 million here not 12 but who cares right.[33] The credit begins to phase out for people with income levels of up to $95,000 a year (or $190,000 for couples).[18] Basically, if we had bought last year as we'd planned, our monthly mortgage would have been $300 more a month.[35] After five years, the rate will increase by 1 percentage point a year until it reaches either the original rate or the what the prevailing mortgage rate was at the time the loan was modified.[18] Under the first pillar of the Basel II accords, the capital requirement of residential mortgage based securities is 50 percent. This would suggest that private firms are required to be more responsible. Through multiple ways of moving assets off an organization's balance sheet, an organization can hide how much risk their company has and hold an inappropriately low amount of easily sellable assets that may be needed in a time of crisis. How we attack risk management will not only affect traditional commercial and insurance banks, but also those provide liquidity to the housing market.[19] Only 37 percent of Americans back the government pumping money into banks and the financial sector to save the economy, according to a recent CBS poll.[21] For example: '''Government does not work for you. You work for the them''' '''Government wants your money and your silence''' '''Government will enslave your children, just like you are''' '''Your taxes are payment to wealthy bankers''' '''Politicians represent the elite class, not you''' '''Campaign money is bribery''' '''Free markets are no longer free''' '''Government will kill you because you allow it''' '''Government will steal your wealth because you allow it''' '''Welfare creates poverty''' '''Give up your gun, give up your liberty''' '''George Orwell was a visionary''' I leave these buttons in bars (yeah, I like beer), on shelves of retail stores, on those small stands in banks (one of my favorite places), on book shelves in public libraries, on shelves in grocery stores, in government buildings and restrooms.[23] The modification plan calls for servicers to voluntarily reduce borrowers' interest rates, after which the government would kick in additional money to bring borrowers' payments down.[18] The Federal Reserve, by keeping interest rates low and money gushing into the economy, created the bubble that saw housing prices rise annually at 10, 15 and 20 percent.[17]
The mortgage giant was taken over by the government and is overseen by the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[5] Freddie's business, which in part comes from a government mandate, is insuring mortgages. When borrowers lose their jobs, as many now are, Freddie is going to lose money.[42] "We have to make sure that there are people in there who are doing the job. The senior managers who got them into trouble have left." FHFA hired a compensation consultant to advise the agency on retaining key employees shortly after the government took over the mortgage firms, he said.[6] More and more people are by now falling off the rolls. These privileged characters who are actually federal employees are taking home more than a billion bucks. Anyway, just be assured: this is not socialism.[28]
The firm also has $48 billion in nonperforming loans that it either holds or has guaranteed against. [42] Loan to value, LTV, would be limited to 75 percent, or $450,000. That'''s not enough to pay off both loans.[46] This pile of dominos started with mortgages. There would be no mortgage crisis if mortgage companies had to eat what they cook. F&F; took the risky loans off their hands and we citizens now pay the tab.[33]
The FHFA says the bonuses were necessary to keep Fannie's most experienced executives working to reverse the effects of the mortgage crisis. [5] The bonuses were necessary to keep Fannie's most experienced executives working to reverse the effects of the mortgage crisis, FHFA Director James B. Lockhart told CNN.[13]
Fannie's bonuses are smaller than ones paid by American International Group Inc. that have caused a political firestorm for that company. [3] As a conservative I am disgusted with some radio show hosts, who are defending the bonuses, as a legal contract. These same hosts carp when union members get a bonus calling it extortion, its not we the union members get a small share of the profit made by the company if no profit then no bonus. I am telling you the conservative movement is losing a lot of union people over this issue, just as the dems are losing us on the immigration issue. The GOP needs to reach out to the unions and tell us what they are trying to do for us instead of constantly berating us as a bunch of ill educated buffoons.[33]
Payouts, however, should it come to that, were beyond AIG's capacity. In AIG's Financial Products division, based in Connecticut and London, brainiacs were creating other exotic instruments, such as credit default swaps to guarantee against losses and insure profits. To keep these wunderkinds at AIG, they were promised million-dollar retention bonuses.[17]
Blago, Madoff, Stanford are all democrats and all crooks. They are just like the rest of them. This is bizarre- These people are making good salaries- what is it that they do that requires such outrageous bonuses. How about if we promise them these bonuses after the compamy is back in the black for two years. Um. do you guys really think this is all happening by accident? Come on.[9] The influence of Dodd and Frank are undeniable. Their fingerprints are all over the evidence. These high ranking Democratis have driving the direction of Freddie, Fannie, and the banking industries for years and years.[31] Consider that some of us with "preferred" Fannie and Freddie stock have seen their value disappear! Yet these bozos get rewarded with a bonus.[28]
The bill limits deferred compensation, usually in the form of company stock, to $1 million. [7] The measure was under consideration because it would have saved the VA approximately $530 million per year. Finally: It's March Madness, and most lawmakers are saying that they'll turn a blind eye and let their staffs have some fun. "My staff puts in long hours and into the weekends, so if they watch a basketball game, I won't be too upset," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who represents the district of the sixth-seeded UCLA. Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) said he would be "disappointed" if his staff didn't "seize the opportunity to keep an eye first and foremost on the University of Oklahoma." Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), however, had a different view: "If I miss them, then my staff has to miss them, too."[8] To qualify for the $8,000 tax credit, the purchase must be made between Jan. 1, 2009, and Nov. 30, 2009, and buyers must make less than $75,000 a year (or $150,000 per couple).[18] OneUnited Bankan Internet bank in Massachussetts which got $12 mn in TARP funds after the intervention of Reps. Frank and'' Maxine Watershas a CEO who was sanctioned by the bank's regulator for excessive compensation and using bank money for his personal gain (a Porsche, lush property in California, etc).'' We are going to tax CEOs of some TARP recipients if they get over a certain amount, but give TARP money to CEOs that have a history of excessive compensation to themselves.[29] Government overspending, ignoring $56 trillion of unfunded liabilities, funding over-expenditures with money borrowed from foreigners, not addressing crumbling infrastructure, not creating a cohesive energy policy, and over-reaching in empire building were the fuel that led to our economy bursting into flames before our very eyes.[23]
Ask Obama where the $90 billion went that was given to Sachs. Obama is going to take down the entire shipLike Michelle said "He will never let you live like you once did".[33] The combined holdings of Treasuries and agency securities by foreign central banks at the Fed totaled $2.594 trillion, up $9.846 billion.[38] Treasuries held by overseas central banks at the Fed rose $8.856 billion to $1.781 trillion in the week ended March 18.[38]
At the end of the day, two public companies that had lost a combined $13 billion in the last 9 months were given a blank check to lose billions more. The CEOs of these two institutions '''earned''' a tremendous amount of compensation while their companies have plummeted to worthlessness. [23]
When the companies were seized, Lockhart dismissed some top executives and outlined a compensation plan to retain other, second-tier executives. "The most important thing in those companies are the human assets," he said. "It was important to us - and we disclosed it at the time - to retain these people. It would have been catastrophic if people had walked out that first day."[4] For the first time in Gallup's 25-year history of asking Americans about the trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth, a majority of Americans say economic growth should be given the priority. Births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent last year, with more than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.[33]
Housing prices stabilized. Homeowners with sub-prime mortgages now found they had to start paying down principal. People losing jobs began to walk away from their houses. [17] Our borders have to be secured since new tax laws, medical insurance reform and schools are getting stimulus money. All these programs will not work if we have open borders. With open borders and these programs, it would be like subsidizing the country of Mexico at our expense.[33]
SOURCES
1. Fannie Mae chiefs in line for huge bonuses - Times Online
2. Bonus Row Extends to Fannie, Freddie : HousingWire || financial news for the mortgage market
3. Bailout Madness, Bonus Bonanza Bingo a Blessing In Disguise :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting Free Website
4. UPDATE 1-Fannie, Freddie regulator defends bonus plan | Markets | Markets News | Reuters
5. Fannie Mae Executives in Line for Big Bonuses, Too
6. UPDATE: FHFA Lockhart Defends Fannie, Freddie Retention Pay
7. No Bonus For You - Forbes.com
8. Iraq -- Six Years Of War In Iraq
9. The Ticker - 4 Fannie Execs Each to Get $400K in Govt.-Okayed Bonuses - Economy Watch
10. Anger grows over million-dollar US bonuses
11. TheHill.com - Frank asks Freddie, Fannie to halt bonuses
12. The Associated Press: Frank says gov't should stop Fannie, Freddie bonus
13. Four Fannie Mae execs to get big bonuses - CNN.com
14. GOP to Probe Links Between AIG, Obama, Dodd - HUMAN EVENTS
15. Two U.S. mortgage giants plan to pay bonuses to executives_English_Xinhua
16. Feds launch Home Affordable site | Real Estate and Technology News for Agents, Brokers and Investors | Inman News
17. VDARE.com: 03/19/09 - Systemic Failure
18. Solutions: Housing recovery - Mar. 16, 2009
19. Ticker - What we have learned from Fannie and Freddie
20. Media Matters - On MSNBC, Tucker Carlson rewrote history to blame Frank for mortgage crisis
21. News Analysis: Bonus anger tests U.S. gov't, threatens recovery plan_English_Xinhua
22. FT.com / UK - China loses billions on equities bets ahead of markets' collapse
23. The Escalator of Life Is Going Down (Part 2) -- Seeking Alpha
24. The Washington Independent » With All the Attention on AIG, Bonuses To Execs of Other Failed Firms Got Overlooked
25. Fannie Mae says bosses will still get big pay-outs | smh.com.au
26. Iowa Politics
27. Mortgage giant Fannie Mae planned big bonuses for Kenneth Bacon, David Hisey, Michael Williams
28. Fannie and Freddie Got Married - The Spine
29. Fannie and Freddie's Bonuses Versus AIG's Handouts at Emac's Stock Watch | Fox Business
30. Fannie and Freddie Have Bonus Problems Too -- Seeking Alpha
31. AIG-A Scape Goat of Massive Proportions
32. Early Briefing: Bonuses, and Worries at Fan and Fred - WashBiz Blog - A blog about businesses in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan region, written by The Washington Post's Dan Beyers and Terri Rupar
33. Morning Bell: Bonus Outrage You Can Believe In » The Foundry
34. Frank Prepares Bill to Revamp Fannie, Freddie - WSJ.com
35. More New Homes? - Local Address - Buying, selling and owning a D.C.-area home.
36. Freddie Mac not selling new notes this week | Markets | Markets News | Reuters
37. The Associated Press: Fannie plans bonuses of up to $611K for 4 execs
38. Foreign central banks' US debt holdings up-NY Fed | Markets | Bonds News | Reuters
39. Details are vital in president's mortgage relief proposal | ajc.com
40. US Rep Frank Demands Cancellation Of Fannie, Freddie Bonuses
41. The Daily News Record: Editorial Opinion
42. Freddie Mac: Government's New Black Hole? - TIME
43. Fannie, Freddie refi rules look good - BostonHerald.com
44. Fannie Mae sells $1 billon bills at lower rates | Markets | Markets News | Reuters
45. Sound Off - Ron Mainous
46. Avoiding a rate hit on an investment property - Mortgage Insider - OCRegister.com
47. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bill sale calendar | Deals | IPOs | Reuters
48. Freddie Mac, FHLB, Fannie Mae 2009 note calendar | Industries | Financial Services & Real Estate | Reuters
GENERATE A MULTI-SOURCE SUMMARY ON ANY SUBJECT
Enter your search query below. WAIT 10-20 sec for the new window to open.
Get more info on Frank Asks Regulator to Pull Fannie, Freddie Bonuses by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.
 |
|  |
|
