PDA

View Full Version : Fannie-Freddie Bailout: $148B and Counting



coyotes_geek
08-10-2010, 10:30 AM
CG: The fannie and freddie money pit continues to burrow deeper and deeper.................

******************

WASHINGTON (TheStreet) -- Second-quarter results from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paint a dark picture for the firms' near-term profitability and for an eventual payback of taxpayer funds.

On Monday, Freddie Mac reported a net loss of $6 billion, or $1.85 per share. It continued to build loan-loss reserves even as big banks like Citigroup , Bank of America , JPMorgan Chase , Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp saw benefits from reducing the amount of cash held against bad debt. Credit losses climbed and its delinquency rate rose, mainly because of problem loans originated during the subprime bubble of 2005 to 2008.

Freddie Mac's conservator will request an additional $1.8 billion from the Treasury Department to keep its balance sheet in the black.

Freddie's results follow a similarly dour report from Fannie Mae last week. Fannie reported a net loss of $3.1 billion, or 55 cents per share, and will need another $1.5 billion from the Treasury. Its credit metrics were slightly better than its mortgage-finance twin, but warned that financial results will be "negatively affected" by bad loans acquired during the subprime bubble and that related expenses "will remain high in 2010."

The Fannie-Freddie bailout is soon to top $148 billion and, unlike American International Group's , it stands little chance of being repaid. While AIG topped the bailout list with a one-time height of $182 billion, the firm has shaved the total down to under $70 billion, with a big chunk set to be repaid by year-end.

Looking at the delinquency trends of Fannie and Freddie's loan books, it's clear the mortgage-finance giants aren't near the end of the loan-loss tunnel. That's especially true if the economy - and housing market - remain on shaky ground.

The default rate on loans originated in 2006 is nearing 5% for Fannie Mae, while the portion of Freddie Mac's 2006 loans that succumbed to foreclosure or short-sale is approaching 4%. That might sound meager, except when considering that the same statistics for pre-2005 vintage loans range from 0.5% to just above 1%.

Within all the negativity sprinkled throughout the two reports, there was a faint silver lining: Loans originated over the past year and a half are doing remarkably well. Default rates are barely existent and delinquency rates are a sliver of a percent.

Just 0.4% of Freddie Mac's 2009-vintage loans are going bad and none of its 2010-vintage loans are suffering. That's largely because of stricter underwriting standards being enacted by the banks and enforced by Fannie and Freddie.

Still, after having accepted nearly $150 billion in taxpayer funds, with losses continuing to accrue and no repayment plan in sight, it's hard to look at their results in a positive light. In an ironic twist, the dividends paid on the Treasury's preferred stock for the quarter totaled $3.2 billion -- only $100 million less than what the two firms are requesting to make their balance sheets whole.

In other words, taxpayers are funding their own dividends and, as Freddie Mac pointed out, the dividends are helping to keep the company unprofitable.

Although the funds "permit the company to remain solvent and avoid receivership," Freddie said in a statement, "the resulting dividend payments are substantial and the company does not expect to earn profits in excess of its annual dividend obligation to Treasury for the indefinite future."

-- Written by Lauren Tara LaCapra in New York.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FannieFreddie-Bailout-148B-tsmf-20600764.html?x=0

boutons_deux
08-10-2010, 10:34 AM
Why is F & F singled out for buying toxic crap (which was absolutely wrong), when the perpetrators/creators of the toxic crap never are?

When F & F tries to cancel their purchase contracts with the sellers of toxic garbage, no deal.

coyotes_geek
08-10-2010, 10:37 AM
Why is F & F singled out for buying toxic crap (which was absolutely wrong), when the perpetrators/creators of the toxic crap never are?

AIG never got singled out?

Winehole23
08-10-2010, 10:56 AM
Goldman Sachs?

Winehole23
08-10-2010, 10:56 AM
BoA and Citi?

boutons_deux
08-10-2010, 10:59 AM
"AIG never got singled out"

AIG ran the derivatives casino, made/took bets. the toxic mortgages were created elsewhere.

Winehole23
08-10-2010, 11:00 AM
Your point?

boutons_deux
08-10-2010, 11:05 AM
AIG wasn't "singled out" for creating toxic/sub-prime/balloon/variable rate/teaser mortgages

ElNono
08-10-2010, 11:07 AM
Goldman Sachs?

BoA and Citi?

I thought those were rewarded, not singled out... :wakeup

CavsSuperFan
08-10-2010, 11:08 AM
I find this thread racist…If Fannie & Freddie go under people who can’t afford to put 5% down on a home purchase will have nowhere to go…

Winehole23
08-10-2010, 11:11 AM
I thought those were rewarded, not singled out... :wakeupLike AIG itself, arguably.

boutons_deux
08-10-2010, 01:02 PM
"people who can’t afford to put 5% down on a home purchase will have nowhere to go"

had dubya's administration simply enforced federal lending rules (as is done now, there are no new regs), liar loans, 5% or less down loans, would have never been possible, and a major percentage of foreclosures and toxic mortgages would have prevented, along with a smaller bubble (smaller bubble-popping disaster).

Of course, the major banks knew they "should" have respected the regulations, so they created arms-length non-bank/unregulated subsidiaries to make such loans so they could compete with the $800B of capitalist cash from non-bank lenders poured into the market by dubya's tax cuts for the super-wealthy.

But keep concentrating only on F&F, it's part of the capitalists-financed noise game to fog over their own fraudulent activities.

boutons_deux
08-10-2010, 01:06 PM
Here's why the finance sector is fighting so hard to trash Elizabeth Warren's nomination for CFPA.


Elizabeth Warren Uncovered What the Govt. Did to 'Rescue' AIG, and It Ain't Pretty


Bailing out AIG effectively meant rescuing Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch (as well as a dozens of European banks) from huge losses. Those financial institutions played the derivatives game with AIG, the esoteric practice of placing financial bets on future events. AIG lost its bets, which led to its collapse. But other gamblers—the counterparties in AIG’s derivative deals—were made whole on their bets, paid off 100 cents on the dollar. Taxpayers got stuck with the bill.

“The AIG rescue demonstrated that Treasury and the Federal Reserve would commit taxpayers to pay any price and bear any burden to prevent the collapse of America’s largest financial institutions,” the COP report said. This could have been avoided, the report argues, if the Fed had listened to disinterested advisers with a less parochial understanding of the public interest.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/147788

coyotes_geek
08-10-2010, 01:20 PM
had dubya's administration simply enforced federal lending rules (as is done now, there are no new regs), liar loans, 5% or less down loans, would have never been possible, and a major percentage of foreclosures and toxic mortgages would have prevented, along with a smaller bubble (smaller bubble-popping disaster).

Dubya & McCain tried to reform F&F in 2006 to do exactly that. But congressional dems weren't having any.

boutons_deux
08-10-2010, 01:43 PM
so the Repugs, controlling Exec and Lege, and having stuffed the courts, couldn't get their way? GMAFB With the Repugs, things are NEVER like they seem.

coyotes_geek
08-10-2010, 01:55 PM
the bill was stalled in committee and the congressional session expired. the next congress was democrat controlled and they had no interest in picking it back up again.