rickjump1 0 #1 June 25, 2009 You wonder about his constituents. QuoteBarney the Underwriter Telling Fannie Mae to take more credit risk. Now there's an idea. Back when the housing mania was taking off, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank famously said he wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to "roll the dice" in the name of affordable housing. That didn't turn out so well, but Mr. Frank has since only accumulated more power. And now he is returning to the scene of the calamity -- with your money. He and New York Representative Anthony Weiner have sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie exhorting them to lower lending standards for condo buyers. You read that right. After two years of telling us how lax lending standards drove up the market and led to loans that should never have been made, Mr. Frank wants Fannie and Freddie to take more risk in condo developments with high percentages of unsold units, high delinquency rates or high concentrations of ownership within the development. Fannie and Freddie have restricted loans to condo buyers in these situations because they represent a red flag that the developments -- many of which were planned and built at the height of the housing bubble -- may face financial trouble down the road. But never mind all that. Messrs. Frank and Weiner think, in all their wisdom and years of experience underwriting mortgages, that the new rules "may be too onerous." And in a display of the wit for which Mr. Frank is famous, the letter writers slyly point out that higher lending standards won't reduce taxpayer exposure to bad loans because the Federal Housing Administration has even lower standards for condos. "While the underlying goal may be to reduce taxpayer exposure relating to the current conservatorship of the GSEs [government sponsored entities], such a goal would not have such an effect if it merely results in a shifting of loans from the GSEs to the FHA." Tougher lending standards will merely shift market share from one government program to another, so what's the point in being cautious? Fannie and Freddie have already lost tens of billions of dollars betting on the mortgage market -- with that bill being handed to taxpayers. They face still more losses going forward, because in the wake of their nationalization last year their new "mission" has become to do whatever it takes to prop up the housing market. The last thing they need is lawmakers like Mr. Frank, who did so much to lay the groundwork for their collapse, telling them to play faster and looser with their lending standards. Fannie and Freddie have always been political creatures under the best circumstances. But we don't remember anyone electing Mr. Frank underwriter-in-chief of the United States. Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 June 25, 2009 Quote»Email Printer Friendly Share: Yahoo Buzz ↓ More facebook MySpace LinkedIn Digg del.icio.us NewsVine StumbleUpon Mixx Save This ↓ More Text It would be nice if you would take two seconds to edit out the irrelevant stuff from the story, like the junk above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #3 June 25, 2009 More Better? John, would you vote for this guy if you could? Back when the housing mania was taking off, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank famously said he wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to "roll the dice" in the name of affordable housing. That didn't turn out so well, but Mr. Frank has since only accumulated more power. And now he is returning to the scene of the calamity -- with your money. He and New York Representative Anthony Weiner have sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie exhorting them to lower lending standards for condo buyers. You read that right. After two years of telling us how lax lending standards drove up the market and led to loans that should never have been made, Mr. Frank wants Fannie and Freddie to take more risk in condo developments with high percentages of unsold units, high delinquency rates or high concentrations of ownership within the development. Associated Press Fannie and Freddie have restricted loans to condo buyers in these situations because they represent a red flag that the developments -- many of which were planned and built at the height of the housing bubble -- may face financial trouble down the road. But never mind all that. Messrs. Frank and Weiner think, in all their wisdom and years of experience underwriting mortgages, that the new rules "may be too onerous." And in a display of the wit for which Mr. Frank is famous, the letter writers slyly point out that higher lending standards won't reduce taxpayer exposure to bad loans because the Federal Housing Administration has even lower standards for condos. "While the underlying goal may be to reduce taxpayer exposure relating to the current conservatorship of the GSEs [government sponsored entities], such a goal would not have such an effect if it merely results in a shifting of loans from the GSEs to the FHA." Tougher lending standards will merely shift market share from one government program to another, so what's the point in being cautious? Fannie and Freddie have already lost tens of billions of dollars betting on the mortgage market -- with that bill being handed to taxpayers. They face still more losses going forward, because in the wake of their nationalization last year their new "mission" has become to do whatever it takes to prop up the housing market. The last thing they need is lawmakers like Mr. Frank, who did so much to lay the groundwork for their collapse, telling them to play faster and looser with their lending standards. Fannie and Freddie have always been political creatures under the best circumstances. But we don't remember anyone electing Mr. Frank underwriter-in-chief of the United States.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #4 June 25, 2009 Better? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #5 June 25, 2009 Hey, no worries... Barney told us that Fannie and Freddie were "just fine", didn't he?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #6 June 25, 2009 QuoteHey, no worries... Barney told us that Fannie and Freddie were "just fine", didn't he? Wonder how much cash he gets out of this? Hope it's just an attempt.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #7 June 25, 2009 QuoteHe and New York Representative Anthony Weiner have sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie exhorting them to lower lending This sort of crass commercialistic statement is more appropriate for the Bonfire, and I'll thank you for keeping your head out of the gutter in the future, Rick.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 June 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteHey, no worries... Barney told us that Fannie and Freddie were "just fine", didn't he? Wonder how much cash he gets out of this? Hope it's just an attempt. He's WAY down the list, if you're talking about campaign contributions - #16. Fanny/Freddie contributions, 1989-2008 1. Dodd, Christopher J D-CT $133,900 2. Kerry, John D-MA $111,000 3. Obama, Barack D-IL $105,849 4. Clinton, Hillary D-NY $75,550 5. Kanjorski, Paul E D-PA $65,500 6. Bennett, Robert F R-UT $61,499 7. Johnson, Tim D-SD $61,000 8. Conrad, Kent D-ND $58,991 9. Davis, Tom R-VA $55,499 10. Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' R-MO $55,400 11. Bachus, Spencer R-AL $55,300 12. Shelby, Richard C R-AL $55,000 13. Emanuel, Rahm D-IL $51,750 14. Reed, Jack D-RI $50,750 15. Carper, Tom D-DE $44,389 16. Frank, Barney D-MA $40,100Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #9 June 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Hey, no worries... Barney told us that Fannie and Freddie were "just fine", didn't he? Wonder how much cash he gets out of this? Hope it's just an attempt. He's WAY down the list, if you're talking about campaign contributions - #16. Fanny/Freddie contributions, 1989-2008 1. Dodd, Christopher J D-CT $133,900 2. Kerry, John D-MA $111,000 3. Obama, Barack D-IL $105,849 4. Clinton, Hillary D-NY $75,550 5. Kanjorski, Paul E D-PA $65,500 6. Bennett, Robert F R-UT $61,499 7. Johnson, Tim D-SD $61,000 8. Conrad, Kent D-ND $58,991 9. Davis, Tom R-VA $55,499 10. Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' R-MO $55,400 11. Bachus, Spencer R-AL $55,300 12. Shelby, Richard C R-AL $55,000 13. Emanuel, Rahm D-IL $51,750 14. Reed, Jack D-RI $50,750 15. Carper, Tom D-DE $44,389 16. Frank, Barney D-MA $40,100 Ugh... Dodd. I'm almost ashamed to admit I live in a state he 'represents'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #10 June 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteHe and New York Representative Anthony Weiner have sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie exhorting them to lower lending This sort of crass commercialistic statement is more appropriate for the Bonfire, and I'll thank you for keeping your head out of the gutter in the future, Rick. Pardon. "Keeping my head out of the gutter"? Now that you brought it up, it is rather trite.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #11 June 25, 2009 $40,000 is a lot of banana skins, and it's just a piece of the pie.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #12 June 25, 2009 Quote$40,000 is a lot of banana skins, and it's just a piece of the pie. Very true...just sayin' he's a good way down the list, in that regard.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #13 June 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteHe and New York Representative Anthony Weiner have sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie exhorting them to lower lending This sort of crass commercialistic statement is more appropriate for the Bonfire, and I'll thank you for keeping your head out of the gutter in the future, Rick. I totally missed that. Huh?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 June 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteHe and New York Representative Anthony Weiner have sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie exhorting them to lower lending This sort of crass commercialistic statement is more appropriate for the Bonfire, and I'll thank you for keeping your head out of the gutter in the future, Rick. I totally missed that. Huh? An attempt at a 'rehmwa', maybe?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #15 June 26, 2009 QuoteAn attempt at a 'rehmwa', maybe? I do like rehmwa, but would not be able to pull off a "rehmwa". Silly joke that bombed, apparently.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 June 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteAn attempt at a 'rehmwa', maybe? I do like rehmwa, but would not be able to pull off a "rehmwa". Silly joke that bombed, apparently. It wasn't *bad*, per se...just wasn't enough snark/sarcasm there to make it "click" as being a joke, that's all!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #17 June 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteAn attempt at a 'rehmwa', maybe? I do like rehmwa, but would not be able to pull off a "rehmwa". Silly joke that bombed, apparently. I promise to remain alert to keep my head out of the gutter.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
