Talk:Fannie Mae/Archives/2012

Needs Organization
Someone needs to clean this mess up. Random sentences appear here and there, and is the statement about driving "business buildings into the ground and [having] ants eat it," supposed to be a quote? Is it supposed to mean something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.111.130 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Public or Private
The first sentence in this article is quite misleading. First it states it is privately owned, but it is traded on the stock market and is considered a private company.. Am I missing something here?? Thoughtbox (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is publicly owned company, however it is now run by Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). NWH5305 03:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwh5305 (talk • contribs)

In February, 2010, I sent a complaint and request for loan information to FHFA regarding the alleged ownership of my loan by Fannie Mae. The FHFA wrote me back to say that since they do not regulate Fannie Mae, they cannot honor my request of take my complaint. Further, the told me to send my request to the FRB and my complaint to the OCC. I did both. The OCC wrote back in April to say they will investigate, have heard nothing since. The Federal Reserve Board wrote to tell me that because I am not a Bank, they cannot give me information about my loan or answer any questions about Fannie Mae's holding, or not, of my loan. I don't think that FHFA is the true conservator running Fannie Mae. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.229.192 (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

How does Subprime Mortgage Crisis affect Fannie Mae?
How Subprime Mortgage Crisis affects Fannie Mae is not explained. It is very important that subprime high risk mortgates are not insured by Fannie Mae, so it should not affect Fannie Mae at all?

I think more discussion on this part is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.35.104 (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's called a bust out. Did you see Goodfellas? When the mob comes in, they sell everything at a loss pocketing as much as they can. They keep borrowing, because they have no intention of paying it back. Then they lend and lend collecting fees, bonuses, etc. Then in the end they go belly-up. In this case, the final bill gets sent to the tax payers. So the dollar is way down against all major currencies, and we have a bigger scandal/cover-up then the S&L bust-out. What can you expect with skull and bones in the Whitehouse.

I agree about ur comment on politics. Never the less, I am here asking an logical question about business. May your guys give me an explaination relate to business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.35.104 (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fannie and Freddie were actually encouraged by Democrat politicians to buy subprime loans as a way to extend home ownership to underrepresented minorities. While this was socially noble the end result was fiscally irresponsible and the taxpayers got stuck with the bill. The Bush administration and prior to that the the Clinton administration tried many times to strengthen regulatory oversight, but Fannie and Freddie were spreading campaign contributions around the congress and their efforts went nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saicome (talk • contribs) 05:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

-

This entry is VERY disappointing, and seems to suffer from editing that constantly changes numbers. The current crisis demands someone provide some basic historical and current data, such as:

1) Number of mortagages OR dollar value held by the GSE's, compared to market, compared to historical trend. 2) Number of sub-primes OR dollar value held by the GSE's, compared to market, compared to historical trend. 3) Number and percentage of mortages bought and resold by the GSE's to third parties. 4) Dates of changes in GSE's standards (i.e. when did they start accepting sub-primes). 5) Relationship of GSE's to CRA and originators.

It is impossible to figure out how big a factor the GSE's were in the meltdown as NO statistics giving size, scope, growth, or loan standards is provided. In fact, sometimes I think this article gets worse over time. What gives? Maxparrish (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Initial comments
I put in an overview of the accounting scandal. Those who have more knowledge of finance/accounting please put in more details about the derivative valuation issue. Shawn Pickrell 16:54 UTC 21 Dec 2004

The speech Remarks by Chairman Alan Greenspan Risk Transfer and Financial Stability To the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's Forty-first Annual Conference on Bank Structure, Chicago, Illinois (via satellite) May 5, 2005 provides some fascinating background on derivatives and the GSEs. --J. W. McLeod 22:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

What's a GSE, as described in the article? This probably needs to be clarified.

A GSE IS A 'government sponsored entity'...

the mention of the 50,000 donation in the Awards section seems out of place.. perhaps in a criticism or controversy section?

I agree...that has nothing to do with awards. Seems like a non-objective stab at FM.

It seems to me that Fannie mae i
 * It is true that earlier this decade, FNMA and Freddie Mac were caught with their pants down and had to retroactively revise their financial statements downward. They could well have to do this again in the near future. The S&L industry was doomed because it issued short term deposits which it invested in long term mortgages, resulting in maturity mismatch. To the best of my knowledge, FNMA and Freddie Mac are not guilty of maturity mismatch. In fact, the existence of FNMA, etc., reduces the risk of maturity mismatch for lenders issuing conforming mortgages. Now FNMA and Freddie Mac are barred from buying up subprime mortgages. In fact, subprime mortgages + jumbos pretty much sums up what FNMA, Freddie Mac, and GNMA won't touch!


 * If that's so, why has the ongoing subprime meltdown affected them, and why have they just been bailed out? A recent cover story in the Economist says that over the period 1998-2006, FNMA and Freddie Mac purchased about US$100B of privately issued mortgage backed securities (MBSs). While the mortgages backing these securities were not blatantly subprime, the ongoing crisis has caused the prices of these securities to decline over the past 12 months, along with the prices of out and out subprime MBSs. When FNMA and Freddie Mac marked their holdings to market, their net worths took a big blow; hence the need to recapitalize and a possible justification for the recent bailout. Would someone please find an external sources for this story and edit the entry accordingly?132.181.160.42 (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Explicit guarantee
I inserted the word "explicit" in the intro. Clearly, Fannie Mae does not have any explicit guarantee of its debt or equity securities by the federal government; however, it clearly benefits in the debt markets from what the market perceives as an implicit government guarantee. --The Outhouse Mouse 15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

should be in the article:

How Fannie Mae Guarantees Repayment of Interest
The controversy on Fannie Mae's guarantee of full repayment of principle and interest is generated with the concern of How can this corporation guarantee this statement when, if conforming borrower was to either sell their existing property, refinance into a new loan or go into foreclosure the existing principle would be paid off and therefore the interest would cease to be collected.?  What FNMA does in situations like these is buy bail bonds or other types of investments, with the said money described in the payoff statement (remaining balance), that equals the amount of interest collected prior to repayment of the existing balance. Many lenders require prepayment penalties to help the onset of buying knew bail bonds for investments (note: not all prepayment penalties affect the selling of a home, these are referred to as soft prepays). If a person was to go into foreclosure within the first year of receiving a mortgage loan (or a deed of trustee), the bank funding has to re-buy the loan, and may have to within the first 3 years. This is has recently been a topic of major controversy with the "sub-prime meltdown" causing numerous banks to repurchase their secondary notes as well as primary notes (if sold), the banks that could not afford to purchase the notes have either closed their doors, filed bankruptcy or have been bought out by larger companies.

this addition needs to highly edited. Axedmt 18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please edit the rough spots in your comment into understandable English, so that we all can understand it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.227.98 (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fannie Mae.gif
Image:Fannie Mae.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fannie Mae.gif
Image:Fannie Mae.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

share price gyrations
Are we going to add information about the July 2008 share price gyrations? Pierre.cardoone (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

were affected particularly hard
Someone please change the above wording. Specifically, 'affected' to 'effected' - affect is an emotional state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.89.170.126 (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Both "effect" and "affect" can be used as both a verb and a noun. You are correct regarding the noun form of "affect", however, it is correctly used here as a verb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.196.3 (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This complaint should be removed. There is no dispute. "The punch in the nose affected George's face adversely." "The punch in the nose effected a general splattering of the cartilage in George's nose." "affected" is used correctly in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.45.35 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Name
Why in the world is this not at Fannie Mae? john k (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's try again. Why in the world is this not at Fannie Mae? john k (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fannie Mae Foundation
I'm reading an article at Bloomberg News which suggests that this non-profit foundation was used inappropriately as a lobbying tool and was closed down in 2007 by Fannie Mae itself after "the Senate Finance Committee started its own investigation the year before to examine whether the foundation's tax-exempt status was being abused and whether it was essentially a lobbying and marketing arm for its corporate parent." I'm sure this should go into this article. __meco (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But weren't we told just two months ago by OFHEO that Fanny & Freddie were "adequately capitalized" ?
See : http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/07/10/afx5203407.html. OFHEO says Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac remain 'adequately capitalized'. 79.210.107.181 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously that assessment was shown to be incorrect in light of the losses reported and reviews subsequently undertaken by the new regulatory authority (directed by the same person, James Lockhart), the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) is no longer the supervising authority, consequent to the signing of legislation permitting the Treasury to step forward to take over the Federal Home Loan Banks. See these sources:
 * HR 3221, signed into law as Public Law 110-289: A bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes. Access to Legislative History: Library of Congress THOMAS: A bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes. White House pre-signing statement: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3221 – Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (July 23, 2008 ). Executive office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington DC.

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

...There is a concensus today that these enterprizes pose a systemic risc and they can not continue in their current form...
Says United States Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in todays press conference about Fanny and Freddie. See (at 27:51) : http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?N=av&T=Paulson%20Calls%20Takeover%20of%20Fannie%2C%20Freddie%20%60Necessary'&clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vSjlNuJSoNGA.asf Holy cow, ''' they pose a systemic risc !! ''' Well, that`s what WIKIPEDIA told you all along, right? 79.210.89.249 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there could be a greatly expanded criticisms section. The current economic fiasco will end up having multiple culprits, but the biggest will turn out to be the sheer existence of Fannie Mae. It was a New Deal creation that had outlived its usefulness by the 1950's. It should have been dissovled in the 1960's.  Instead, it was allowed to grow into a monster that eventually caused the current mess. In this area, there really were no Democrats or Republicans. There were clean politicians and corrupt politicians. Fannie and Freddie would bribe whoever was in power; it didn't matter. No one thought to ask "Why do we need government-sponsored mortgage lenders, when private sector banks are quite willing to make loans?" The answer turned out to be "So we can trick home buyers into taking larger loans than they can afford." It was government-sponsored economic suicide. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

context in history section
Could someone please add some context to the transparent dig at the Clinton administration under History? It is probably deserved, but there should be some discussion of congress's involvement and the bill in 1999 that led to deregulation/consolidation (can't remember the name atm). This seems like a significant moment in Fannie's history and it should be elaborated upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.10.44.2 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find anything about Congress' involvement but I did paraphrase the sentence better (since it was taken pretty much word-for-word from the NYT article) and provided a reference. I also tried to make the language a little less POV.  --UC_Bill (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are good sources/info on this and other info in the Community Reinvestment Act article which is much more heavily disputed than this article but that means a lot of interesting sources have popped up, many mentioning Fannie Mae. Subprime crisis impact timeline has a lot of dates and bills and more will be forthcoming... Carol Moore 02:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

This history section appears blatantly partisan and cherry-picked from where I'm standing. I'm kind of surprised this article hasn't been flagged by Wikipedia, considering that it clearly violates neutrality policy. Someone really ought to clean it up. Dmccullough (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerning: In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration[citation needed] to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers.   Either give a good reference or get rid of this comment. What bill? How did it pressure Fannie Mae to buy up more risky loans? Otherwise this sounds like a partisan comment -modey3

What rule let Fannie Mae hold just 2.5% of capital?
This factoid is in both a widely published and circulated Sept. 24 Terry Jones article and a 9/25/08 Ginny Browne-Waite press release. Anyone know when this was allowed and under a law or a regulation issued by (who?) If true, it obviously belongs in the article.
 * Related rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks, encouraging banks to make even more loans to low income communities, often with no down payment and little documentation. Carol Moore 15:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
 * Carol, it would be really good to have a citation for this. Thanks. Simon Marchese (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Krugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14krugman.html It should be here. Brusegadi (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to second this. It is important to note Krugman's points. I would also like to see more discussion of Rep Frank's involvement in creating the problem given that he's taking a public lead as resolving someone else's mess. The political activities of these corporations must be eliminated.

Bemcfarland (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

On Rep. Frank's Involvement: Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical. "It’s absolutely a conflict’" said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. ‘He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?’”

Cutting both ways …

Openly gay, Barney Frank has openly supported gay rights and feels that they should be treated as anyone else, same rights and privileges under the law.

" ‘If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have - or at least what’s not in the stock market - that this would be considered germane,’ added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. ‘But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard.’"

“A top GOP House aide agreed.”

" ‘C’mon, he writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?’ the aide told FOX News. ‘No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if Frank’s political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxley’s wife or [GOP presidential nominee John] McCain’s wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the nation’s housing and banking laws.’"

Leading the way or leading us astray?

“Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress.”

" ‘I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus,’ Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. ‘On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover.’"

“The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses ‘helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.’"

“Critics say such programs led to the mortgage meltdown that prompted last month’s government takeover of Fannie Mae and its financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.”

Partisan hypocrite?

“Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.”

Bucking his own party …

“Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.”

" ‘I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,’ Clinton said recently.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod Lilley (talk • contribs) 02:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Appointment of directors
The article states that secretary Snow proposed that Congress abolish the president's right to appoint directors of Fanny Mae. Were all the directors of Fanny Mae appointed by the President or only some of them? The article states nothing about how the executives were appointed.Afil (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is the accounting firm that cooked the books?
For Enron, Arthur Andersen cooked their books and they burned for it. There is no more Anderson. Who cooked the books for Fanny and Freddie? Why aren't we hearing about them like we did about Anderson? Bluetd (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Early Warnings section
I edited the Early Warnings section because it only referred to Democrat opposition to proposals to increase regulation of Fanny Mae, even though Congress was controlled by Republicans throughout this period. I also added some details -- legislation was not drafted based on Bush's 2003 proposal until 2005, and this bill did not make it out of a Republican-controlled committee to be presented to the Senate. --Mujokan (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There weren't "many Republicans" in opposition and the Senate was 51-49 at the time. I removed the section that referred to John Snows testimony that was a insignificant factoid that added nothing to the discussion. I added Rep Franks staunch opposition to regulation at the time. Since it is the early warnings sections, I believe all the early warnings should be added dating all the way back to 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthIsReality (talk • contribs) 18:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clearly misleading to ONLY talk about Democratic opposition to Bush's proposal. I can't see why one shouldn't mention Republican opposition and inaction here, since they were the ones in power who were most likely to get legislation through. --Mujokan (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

History
History currently states that "has played an integral part in the development of the most successful mortgage market in the world" without citation or definition. Recent events prompt me to ask for some justification for this statement. Simon Marchese (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for franks paragraph
One of the few paragraphs lacking citations (or notes that citation is needed)in Early Warnings section:

In 2003, the Bush administration recommended significant regulatory overhaul of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, the Democrats opposed that proposal, fearing that tighter regulation could sharply reduce financing for low-income housing, both low and high risk. Under immense lobbying pressure from Fannie Mae in association with Congressional Democrats led by Rep. Barney Frank, the Republican controlled Congress did not introduce any legislation aimed at bringing this proposal into law until 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.108.216 (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph seems partisan suspect to me. Frank is a Democrat and the Democrats were the minority party in 2003. Frank didn't have the power to obstruct any legislation the Republicans wanted to pass, either in the House or in the House Banking Committee.

The final paragraph about Barney Frank seems completely partisan and is not cited. Frank dating a person involved with Fannie Mae is not in and of itself a conflict of interest. If all romantic relationships between government agencies were listed, this and other entries would get much longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatarcourt (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Claiming the final paragraph is partisan is biased and partisan itself. How is stating Frank and Moses were lovers being partisan? Either they were or they were not, and everyone knows they were, it's factual! See section above on Barney Frank's involvement with Moses, starting in 1991 when Frank got on the committee. Even the liberal NY Times questioned the conflict of interest. These kinds of challenges is why Wikipedia is not being allowed to be cited in schools and universities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod Lilley (talk • contribs) 02:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

TBA?
In Business Mechanism section the abbreviation "TBA" is used without explanation. I've looked this up in several places (including Wikipedia and Wiktionary) and found several expansions but none that seems to fit. To Be Announced? Don't think so. What does this mean?

Note: I think it's generally good practice to use full terms followed by abbreviations in parenthesis the first time a term is used. In a wiki were a paragraph that contains that initial expansion may be removed in the future, erring on the side of repetition may be prudent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.108.216 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please clean up
I came to this article to learn a little more about Fannie Mae. Could someone please cleanup the last section? I placed a number of tags. The entire section appears to be rather POV (...Barney Frank's lover..."other lawmakers"..."powerful", etc) Please clarify and provide encyclopedic content. Thanks. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It likely should all be removed as poorly/ un- sourced mud-slinging and possibly BLP violations. -- Banj e  b oi   18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

From the "Conflict of interest" section, I eliminated the sentence "Fannie Mae has also acted as a sinecure of Democratic Party officials which might explain part of the favorable treatment it has received from Congress. "  Although used in the Wall Street Journal editorial cited as the source, the use of the word "sinecure" is certainly not standard usage. The WSJ article was about Franklin Raines and James A. Johnson and an incident that was also already mentioned in the previous sentence. The sentence added no additional information. I also clarified that the OpenSecrets.org report that was the original source of the campaign contribution data in the next paragraph did not state that Fannie Mae executives had made donations to Barack Obama. The total included all individual employee contributions. The report also showed that John McCain had received considerably more PAC money from Fannie Mae than Obama. I believe my edits make for a more balanced presentation. IggyDad (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Alas, someone reinserted the 'sinecure' section, this time referencing the "Democrat" Party. Removing the '-ic' from 'Democratic Party' is a fairly common intended slight on the part of conservative partisans. Consequently, the objectivity of the 'sinecure' section appears to be suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.55 (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Frank much?
On September 30, 1991, Frank voted for a bill to create a new regulatory agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie, which were government-sponsored enterprises until they were taken over by the federal government on September 8, 2008.

It is bias and partisan to imply that Frank relationship with Moses somehow influence him to be against regulations for Fannie and Freddie. Moses was gone by 2005 and when Frank was dating Moses in the early 1990'2, it did not prevented Frank from voting for regulations of Fannie and Freddie.

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED HOUSING ENTERPRISES FINANCIAL SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS ACT OF 1991, Frank voted in favor of it. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992, Frank also voted in favor of this bill.

Both these bills regulated Fannie and Freddie. Stop with the Fox News lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.100.189 (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First it doesn't help your position to state "Stop with the Fox News lies". Second I thought Frank said there wasn't any real regulations on Fannie and Freddie, and that was the problem. Then how can his votes on these two bills be considered to show unbiased/neutral position. By the way, Frank now wants to restart those same loose lending again as well as stating there does not need to be anymore oversight with Fannie and Freddie. PLUS, it simply states a possible conflict of interest by having a former life partner/lover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.32.130 (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How do banks figure in to FM or FM or GM play into the role of a bank?
seems some words need to be explained on what debt fannie bought and from who? Did Merrill Lynch & Co sell JUNK or TOXIC paper to fannie? When B of A took $25 BILLION from tarp why did it need another $20 BILLION ,was that to make OWNERS of Merrill Whole?

explain in DUMMY terms how it works?

little guy goes to local bank and wants to fix up a slum area ? the local bank applys for hud and gets aproved on merit it will be worth X $ after investment? does the local bank then take that note and sell it to B sterns & they sell to Goldman Sachs? adding AIG ins ,wow now its good because its insured? so when FM sees its junk aig pays GS full price? GS then sells it to Leihmon Bros or Merrill Lynch and so its like a hot potatoe? all making Thousands along the way on each trade? last one sells to Fannie

so its like a big ponzi Madoff was a 1 man deal and this was a 4-5 big player type companies MILLIONARE- BILLIONARE companys

sounds to me of these NY investment banks some were democrat some were other side of isle?

like the other person said it was a big lobby firm because of all the money that went to congress? and then also besides what Fannie gave so did the big NY firms also

I told my mother that the bank colapse was not as bad as if we had 3-400 members of congress behind bars?

there was a note on country wide loans ,how many in congress recieved these loans?

Almost gives a new incite of the game MONOPOLY tommy4usa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.15.27 (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

First uses of name
I'm not sure where to add this, and it needs to be reworded, but it's got lots of good links:


 * "Fannie Mae started out as a government agency back in 1938, as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Though it was officially known as the FNMA, it was almost immediately given its feminine nickname as a playful acronym. The July-Dec. 1938 issue of Architectural Forum explained that the agency had already been "nicknamed 'Fanny May' by Washington's bureau wags." Over the next few decades "Fanny May" or "Fannie Mae" became an increasingly common designation. A 1967 book on the Department of Housing and Urban Development explained that "Fannie Mae" was "the unofficial trademark name often seen in financial headlines." The book quoted a spokesman for the agency, who said that "nobody seems to know who coined the nickname, but everybody uses it."

When the FNMA became privatized in 1970, the "unofficial" trademark turned into an official one, and the association referred to itself as "Fannie Mae" from then on. (You can see the original filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office here.)"

Quoted source: http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1529/ [unclear if it meets WP:RS criteria (I think so), but in any case it cites sources that clearly do. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous conclusions
I hardly think the conclusion drawn in the quote below can be justified. Trying to prevent a financial meltdown and a run on the banks is all the motivation any administration would need to make these statements; Any other action would have been irresponsible. Clearly Fannie wasn't sound or it wouldn't have been bailed out. It is also clear Barney's actions led to Fannie buying substandard, junk loans.

"Shares continued to plummet[30] as investors became unsure about the adequacy of the capital held by FNMA. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson as well as the White House went on the air to defend the financial soundness of Fannie Mae. These statements by the GW Bush administration in 2008 confirmed the view offered five years previous by Democratic Party Representative Barney Frank." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousgeorge1956 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"The mortgage crisis from late 2003"
This section is citing a recent paper that itself admits "There is little consensus as to the cause of the housing bubble that precipitated the financial crisis of 2008" - see abstract http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1669401. Another paper http://www.aei.org/outlook/28704 argues that the main motivation behind the bad decisions was a desire stay politically useful after the accounting scandals of 2003-2004 made the company more vulnerable to critics. I think it would be helpful to change this section to reflect that there are numerous theories was to what happened, and to cite more than one of them. Tiki2099 (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)