JSmith5
4時間前
Right now it's a government owned and run agency
No. They were and still are private corporations owned by the stockholders. And they never were, are not, and never will be "agencies". An agency is an entity of the Government. These are Government Sponsored Enterprises. They are currently under conservatorships that are managed by the Government. The Government never nationalized the companies both for the sake of optics and, most importantly, the public would not see the humor of instantly increasing the Federal debt by about $8-9T. This all might sound like splitting hairs or something, but I am tired of people saying that the Government owns these companies. I saw a couple of videos on UTube where the guy says that the Government currently owns 79.99%, etc.
That being said, we are in a hostage situation where the Government will let us get out of conservatorship in exchange for a piece of the action - a very large piece of the action. I guess then, at least for a short time, you could say that the Government would be majority owner - but owner of what still would be private corporations. Am I off base on this?
Nats
jog49
6時間前
"As someone suggested, get one of the Trumps on F's or F's board."
That can't happen, at present, because shareholders' rights have been suspended and thus, our hands are tied. The BODs of both Fannie and Freddie are "government boards" doing exactly what the government wants them to do. Restore shareholders' rights (out of conservatorships) where we can nominate and vote and we can put you on a board DC Bill as well as all the Trumps, if we wish.
DCBill
6時間前
That's what's happening now, remembering "there is NO BACKSTOP," it's just assumed if any legitimate financial problems (not those political myths made up by the party in power, which is what happened in 2008), the government would step in). But, despite all the GSE money going annually to the Treasury, the relationship is "implicit" not "explicit," like commercial bank deposit insurance.
But, to your question, because of the heavy, well-heeled nature of the GSE opponents, every court issue is a potential decision by SCOTUS, which showed little interest the last time in supporting F&F; in fact, showed a rather significant lack of understanding and history.
That could change if this Administration indicates its support. But, until that happens, I would try and stay away from the courts; as well as a full congressional review, since each chamber has notable GSE enemies (in both parties), i.e. any changes (very simple, reducing the current venal capital standards and, possibly, clarifying the GSE investment authority) should be made through efficient executive action, not slow, grinding legislative action.
DCBill
7時間前
Public comments all are CYA; actions speak louder (see MBA's positioning on all recent GSE actions.)
Also, as always with the GSEs, the "Devil is in the details"; what's the capital, and what mission changes (limitations) would the mortgage bankers, commercial bankers, and IBs insist on as a price for their approval?
Turning them loose, only to re-shackle them won't do it.
"It's all about the Benjamins!"
From which group will future GSE income come? It can't be mortgage consumers!
Just think of all of that "fat" in the current mortgage finance process, from home inspections, title searches, to closing costs, etc., which an efficient F&F could reduce.