Quote :

Two major Chinese banks that own £4bn (€4.9bn) in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities welcomed Washington’s bailout of the troubled mortgage lenders but declined to say today whether they expect to lose money.

“We think it is a good thing for the two companies,” said Wang Zhaowen, a spokesman for Bank of China.

A spokesman for Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, Xie Taifeng, said: “It showed the positive attitude of the US government. We welcome it.”

Chinese banks have largely avoided the impact of the credit crisis that has hammered US and European lenders. They have set aside reserves for possible losses on subprime mortgage debt, but even the biggest owner, Bank of China, says such securities make up just 1.5% of its total holdings.

Bank of China, the country’s No 3 commercial lender by assets, said in late August it owned £4.2bn (€5.2bn) in Fannie and Freddie bonds after cutting its holdings by about 25%. The bank also held £3bn (€3.7bn) in mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by the two agencies. Wang declined to give more recent figures.

The US government took control Sunday of Fannie and Freddie, which own or guarantee about half of American mortgage debt.

“We think this is good for Fannie and Freddie because the US government used to be invisibly guaranteeing them but now it is taking explicit action to positively guarantee them,” Mr Wang said. He said Bank of China would decide what steps to take next based on what happens in the market.

Just caught someone on Bloomberg suggesting sequestration of the Oil companies profits as that would pay off F and F and some. Only half joking I think.

This bail out looks like a pre-election move, same as the dipping into the Strategic Oil Reserves. The fact that Paulson says it is not, is as good as proof as any.

MSMBN has also moved some of its anchors for being too pro Obama.

Perhaps the election is finally going from phony to real war.

Surely it is clearly the US tax payer bailing out their friends in China and elsewhere?

I expect these and Northern Rock to end up fully in the hands of the private sector. I bet they will be a real bargain!

As I said earlier these companies are not necessarily just liabilities they have also massive assets. All you need to do is either off load the liabilities and leave someone holding the can or make those assets pay. The second option Banks are not geared for and the first would have meant leaving the Chinese and Japanese feeling quite aggrieved with all sorts of possible consequences for the dollar.

Still trying to get my mind around what would have happened if they simply let companies like this go under. Foreign investors and a lot of Americans would be noticeable poorer, but the taxpayer less burdened?

You would really need to have a look through their range of mortgages and loans, and have people other than Bankers also involved, to assess the real value of the assets and to maximise value and get returns moving. The problem is the apparent shear scale, it needs broken down. 5000 houses at 200,000 each is 1 billion. That is a manageable chunk. You have to remember that many of that 5000 are probably old mortgages with no problem.

I think there is not only a massive Banking problem but also poor management structures to cope with the problem in a practical manner.

Squire wrote:

Surely it is clearly the US tax payer bailing out their friends in China and elsewhere?

I expect these and Northern Rock to end up fully in the hands of the private sector. I bet they will be a real bargain!

As I said earlier these companies are not necessarily just liabilities they have also massive assets. All you need to do is either off load the liabilities and leave someone holding the can or make those assets pay. The second option Banks are not geared for and the first would have meant leaving the Chinese and Japanese feeling quite aggrieved with all sorts of possible consequences for the dollar.

Still trying to get my mind around what would have happened if they simply let companies like this go under. Foreign investors and a lot of Americans would be noticeable poorer, but the taxpayer less burdened?

You would really need to have a look through their range of mortgages and loans, and have people other than Bankers also involved, to assess the real value of the assets and to maximise value and get returns moving. The problem is the apparent shear scale, it needs broken down. 5000 houses at 200,000 each is 1 billion. That is a manageable chunk. You have to remember that many of that 5000 are probably old mortgages with no problem.

I think there is not only a massive Banking problem but also poor management structures to cope with the problem in a practical manner.

One of the justifications for the Fed. moving on F and F is that supposedly the value of assets had been exaggerated (although not illegally). There are quite big differences in the estimated value that different people/firms are putting on F and F shares.

This is perhaps the lesser of two evils and can mark a turning point in this continuing saga of financial and economic difficulties around the world. If the US government can now carry out significant reform to the way in which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do business, sort out the mess they are in now and then privatise it in about 3-4 years then the US mortgage market will have been changed for the better and a new era can be ushered in for more sensible market conditions to prevail.

I think that if export growth in the US maintains its current remarkable strength, personal consumption declines for another while, tax cuts for the very wealthy are unwound to close the federal deficit and the housing market continues its march towards equilibrium then the current woes in the US economy will be all but gone in the next few years. The US will have a renewedly strong platform for growth and it can put behind it the difficulties of the past.

cactus flower wrote:

One of the justifications for the Fed. moving on F and F is that supposedly the value of assets had been exaggerated (although not illegally). There are quite big differences in the estimated value that different people/firms are putting on F and F shares.

The point I am trying to make is that Banks are not particularly good at assessing and maximising the value of property assets. The book value of a property is generally meaningless in most businesses. The market value is what someone is willing to pay for it. If there is no one buying it is a hypothetical value. If the property is rented out then there is an income and the value is based on income, or it could be that the site is in actuality worth more than the building. IMO Banks are not nimble enough to turn some of these 'liabilities' into assets. In fact some of what they are doing is tantamount to demolition.

Squire wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

One of the justifications for the Fed. moving on F and F is that supposedly the value of assets had been exaggerated (although not illegally). There are quite big differences in the estimated value that different people/firms are putting on F and F shares.

The point I am trying to make is that Banks are not particularly good at assessing and maximising the value of property assets. The book value of a property is generally meaningless in most businesses. The market value is what someone is willing to pay for it. If there is no one buying it is a hypothetical value. If the property is rented out then there is an income and the value is based on income, or it could be that the site is in actuality worth more than the building. IMO Banks are not nimble enough to turn some of these 'liabilities' into assets. In fact some of what they are doing is tantamount to demolition.

Yes, very true I know. They are not any good at getting the best out of this stuff and are under pressure to realise something from it without letting overheads mount up. Also, if the market is falling a bad decision made quickly might do better for them than a good, but slow one, if you know what I mean.

Setting aside the social and economic ramifications of the Treasury (not Congressional) take over of F&F, we have to consider where the money for the eventual shortfall in F&F revenues will come. It's all well and good to say that the taxpayer is going to fund the shortfall BUT the taxpayer (ie by extension the government) doesn't have any money. The cubbard is bare - nada, nil dollars. So the Treasury is going over to its friends at the Federal Reserve to borrow the money. The Reserve, a private bank, is going to lend the taxpayer the money. Is this money free? Damn sure it isn't. So the tax payer had taken on a massive net liability and the private bankers are going to press a few buttons on the keyboard at the NY Fed Reserve and create a whole load of new cash in the economy. It's called inflation when you create money from nothing and should halt the deflation of commodities for a short period.

From what I'm reading around the web, from mortgage sites to economic analysis, no one is entirely impressed, and as the implications play out I expect a negative reaction to begin forming. A good site is RGE monitor but you have to pay for it - however, sometimes you can sneak an article or two. It's run by economists and Uni lecturers who just put the data on the table with some commentary and let you make up your own mind www.regmonitor.com/.

As the famous pundit, Roy Keane, would say "at the end of the day (grimmace, snarl and slight sideways grin) the gaffer (Treasury) had to grasp the nettle". No amount of waffle or spin takes away from the fact that the mortgage crisis in the US is the worst in modern history. The Treasury's take-over of F&F only serves to confirm the malaise. It's not going to make things better but only serves to smooth the waters for the election. The mess still has to be cleaned and the take-over in and of itself only begins the process. People are not going to stop defaulting on mortgages today just because the Treasury owns F&F. If you're interested look into this site www.housingwire.com/ and see that even the well-healed in Manhattan are defaulting on their luxury gaffes.

[As a side note, the fiduciary and regulatory elements I talked about were in place since the last depression. Credit worthiness of customers was paramount and a set of minimum criteria had to be met by every lender in order to make loans. Audits by regulators were a regular feature of banking life back in my days.

It is impossible to underwrite millions of bad loans unless 1. regulators stopped regulating for some reasons or 2. the regulators and government knew what was going on but didn't give a rat's arse.

The upshot, for all the smoke and mirror statements being bandied about, is the simple fact that someone or, more to the point, some people at the highest levels knew what was going on and knowing the ultimate ramifications saw some advantage in letting the whole episode play out. If not, the sheer amount regulatory negligence is of the highest order and people should be facing courts. Imo, the people who should be facing legal questions are actually the ones manipulating the system at this moment.]

Quote :

The upshot, for all the smoke and mirror statements being bandied about, is the simple fact that someone or, more to the point, some people at the highest levels knew what was going on and knowing the ultimate ramifications saw some advantage in letting the whole episode play out. If not, the sheer amount regulatory negligence is of the highest order and people should be facing courts. Imo, the people who should be facing legal questions are actually the ones manipulating the system at this moment.]

Rockyracoon

When there is a phony boom, a person can stand back and be correct, or get in there and make money, and hope to get out before the bubble bursts. Politicians don't want to rock the boat when they are getting elected and everyone is happy living on tick. Here at any rate, there were economists who were saying for five years or more that this was not right, and that manufacture was weakening. I would say though that the ESRI went soft in the head over the last three years and weren't warning the way they should have been.

Crashes can be great for the mega rich as we have seen, they can step in and clean up. If there is a war, they make money out of that.

What do you think would have happened since the dot com bubble if there hadn't been a credit bubble? I don't know, but I have the feeling that the credit bubble put off the evil day - it was going to come anyway.

rockyracoon wrote:

Imo, the people who should be facing legal questions are actually the ones manipulating the system at this moment.]

I would agree with you on that, and yes they did know what was the likely outcome. As I have said elsewhere, there is more opportunity for making a killing when an economy goes into recession provided you had the sense to bail out before the collapse.

I also think that in many ways we have become decadent and a good selection of leading lights spending 10 years behind bars may help resolve the complacency. The problem is pinning charges and making them stick.

There is also a political problem, we just do not have the calibre of people who can deliver the truth even if it is bad news.

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

This is a very detailed and clear report on F and F.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ajcw4yxxPGJ8&refer=us.

Woho! that's pretty detailed alright I don't understand the half of it i.e. who's getting screwed and so on. I'll have to read it tomorrow.

Anyone any idea how the markets'll react tomorrow? I'd say there'll be rallies all around.

Your guess on the markets was right, when many on P.ie were forecasting the opposite. F and F shares though are not now worth much. Most of the shareholders are in the US. The foreign banks - China - UK - maybe us - were holding bonds which are safeguarded. The US gov was forced to do this as China in particular was beginning to divest of US bonds, which would I suppose be the end of the US and the dollar if it went the whole hog. It will be paid for by the US tax payers and may cost more than the Iraq war.

Will we see Obama looking less and less keen to win this election?

Did you know you can get a house in the States for 10,000 dollars? I presume that's what people working in Walmart might afford. When pointing fingers, remembering Clinton's role in bringing in the low wage service based economy is only fair.

George Lee is an honest guy. Anyone hear him on RTE this morning?

cactus flower wrote:

Your guess on the markets was right, when many on P.ie were forecasting the opposite. F and F shares though are not now worth much. Most of the shareholders are in the US. The foreign banks - China - UK - maybe us - were holding bonds which are safeguarded. The US gov was forced to do this as China in particular was beginning to divest of US bonds, which would I suppose be the end of the US and the dollar if it went the whole hog. It will be paid for by the US tax payers and may cost more than the Iraq war.

Will we see Obama looking less and less keen to win this election?

Did you know you can get a house in the States for 10,000 dollars? I presume that's what people working in Walmart might afford. When pointing fingers, remembering Clinton's role in bringing in the low wage service based economy is only fair.

George Lee is an honest guy. Anyone hear him on RTE this morning?

Didn't hear George Lee - was he on Morning Ireland?

I also didn't know that a house cost so little in the states - does it? While the prices of homes in Spain and Morocco are/were going up, the price in Florida is dropping. We could end up seeing Polish houses dearer than American ones and America the new Bulgarian housing market. They might have to allow an increase in their population by several million Chinese, Japanese and South Americans. Some of these crowds live off very little and can fit a good number into those massive McMansions. Could be back to the days of several generations occupying the same house which existed here but possibly not in the states?

I'd say there are plenty of jobs for people over there if they wanted them.

Ultimately, the evidence of the F and F affair is that a lot of Americans can not afford to buy even a cheap house. F and F mortgages were not subprime and a lot are defaulting.

The point rockyracoon was making is that there is a culture in the US of not chaining a person to a mortgage - this means that if they don't pay and hand the house back, if there is negative equity they don't have to pay the difference back to the mortgage lender. Here, we do. That means it is very attractive in the US to default on your mortgage if house prices are falling and you have a big mortgage.

cactus flower wrote:

Ultimately, the evidence of the F and F affair is that a lot of Americans can not afford to buy even a cheap house. F and F mortgages were not subprime and a lot are defaulting.

The point rockyracoon was making is that there is a culture in the US of not chaining a person to a mortgage - this means that if they don't pay and hand the house back, if there is negative equity they don't have to pay the difference back to the mortgage lender. Here, we do. That means it is very attractive in the US to default on your mortgage if house prices are falling and you have a big mortgage.

Yeah. Still, what happens to all the property defaulted-on? There's a huge amount of it waiting there to be sold on. This will happen. I'm telling you the Americans will need to start reviewing their immigration policies. Youngdan could have a few Mexicans living beside him yet even up as far as New England - Los Jones.

Any other ideas why ordinary Americans might be squeezed to pay their mortgages besides the cost of oil breaking their cojones?

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Ultimately, the evidence of the F and F affair is that a lot of Americans can not afford to buy even a cheap house. F and F mortgages were not subprime and a lot are defaulting.

The point rockyracoon was making is that there is a culture in the US of not chaining a person to a mortgage - this means that if they don't pay and hand the house back, if there is negative equity they don't have to pay the difference back to the mortgage lender. Here, we do. That means it is very attractive in the US to default on your mortgage if house prices are falling and you have a big mortgage.

Yeah. Still, what happens to all the property defaulted-on? There's a huge amount of it waiting there to be sold on. This will happen. I'm telling you the Americans will need to start reviewing their immigration policies. Youngdan could have a few Mexicans living beside him yet even up as far as New England - Los Jones.

Any other ideas why ordinary Americans might be squeezed to pay their mortgages besides the cost of oil breaking their cojones?

The houses are just being cleared away. American houses are usually made of timber and are quite light weight.

cactus flower wrote:

The houses are just being cleared away. American houses are usually made of timber and are quite light weight.

Certainly the ones selling for 10,000 bucks are.

johnfás wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The houses are just being cleared away. American houses are usually made of timber and are quite light weight.

Certainly the ones selling for 10,000 bucks are.

Here's a thing:

johnfás wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The houses are just being cleared away. American houses are usually made of timber and are quite light weight.

Certainly the ones selling for 10,000 bucks are.

You'd be lucky to get a site for 10k here on which you'd be allowed to grow only as much as a wee bit of algae, not to mind build a house.

Now, if they are big houses and are getting knocked down then that's good and here's why - life comes from destruction:



Is this not so true?

The severance packages of Mudd and Syron will be in the order of $20 million between them.

Quote :

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The multimillion-dollar exit packages for the ousted chief executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac drew sharp criticism on Monday from shareholder- and consumer rights groups that deemed the compensation excessive, particularly given the almost-complete collapse of the mortgage giants' shares.

Daniel Mudd, the outgoing CEO of Fannie Mae, could receive more than $9 million in combined severance pay, retirement benefits and deferred compensation based on his employment agreement, according to executive compensation consulting firm James F. Reda & Associates.

Departing Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron may collect as much as $14.1 million, the consulting firm said. The total includes an estimated $8.8 million tied to an unique provision in his contract that became effective last November, when Freddie's troubles had already come under scrutiny.

In light of the drubbing the stocks have taken, shareholder advocates were irate that the CEOs' departures could bring them financial rewards.

Shareholder groups blast Fannie, Freddie payouts

Is there no law to catch the likes of these scum? There should be lynchings and hangings!

Quote :

Is there no law to catch the likes of these scum? There should be lynchings and hangings!

I used to say that about the likes of National Toll Roads, Liam Lawlor and Padraig Flynn.

I 've resigned myself now to the idiosyncracies of the electorate.

BooHoo on them.

Auditor #9 wrote:

The severance packages of Mudd and Syron will be in the order of $20 million between them.

Quote :

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The multimillion-dollar exit packages for the ousted chief executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac drew sharp criticism on Monday from shareholder- and consumer rights groups that deemed the compensation excessive, particularly given the almost-complete collapse of the mortgage giants' shares.

Daniel Mudd, the outgoing CEO of Fannie Mae, could receive more than $9 million in combined severance pay, retirement benefits and deferred compensation based on his employment agreement, according to executive compensation consulting firm James F. Reda & Associates.

Departing Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron may collect as much as $14.1 million, the consulting firm said. The total includes an estimated $8.8 million tied to an unique provision in his contract that became effective last November, when Freddie's troubles had already come under scrutiny.

In light of the drubbing the stocks have taken, shareholder advocates were irate that the CEOs' departures could bring them financial rewards.

Shareholder groups blast Fannie, Freddie payouts

Is there no law to catch the likes of these scum? There should be lynchings and hangings!

The law is there to deal with those reprobates who don't pay their telly licence.

Auditor #9 wrote:

The severance packages of Mudd and Syron will be in the order of $20 million between them.

Quote :

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The multimillion-dollar exit packages for the ousted chief executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac drew sharp criticism on Monday from shareholder- and consumer rights groups that deemed the compensation excessive, particularly given the almost-complete collapse of the mortgage giants' shares.

Daniel Mudd, the outgoing CEO of Fannie Mae, could receive more than $9 million in combined severance pay, retirement benefits and deferred compensation based on his employment agreement, according to executive compensation consulting firm James F. Reda & Associates.

Departing Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron may collect as much as $14.1 million, the consulting firm said. The total includes an estimated $8.8 million tied to an unique provision in his contract that became effective last November, when Freddie's troubles had already come under scrutiny.

In light of the drubbing the stocks have taken, shareholder advocates were irate that the CEOs' departures could bring them financial rewards.

Shareholder groups blast Fannie, Freddie payouts

Is there no law to catch the likes of these scum? There should be lynchings and hangings!

Meh, the advantages of having a renewed and refreshed management board far outweigh the cost of getting rid of the old guard. $20 million is a small price to pay for a chance to turn these trillion-dollar behemoths around towards saleable status. In any case, this encourages other boards, such as the likes of Lehmans, to accept the terms of federal deals since they can be confident of a reasonable settlement. We must be pragmatic about this.

Give Syron a break. He sits on the board of The Boston Federal Reserve. Just like the chairman of Morgan sits on the NY Federal Reserve board. If the public are too stupid to figure out why the bankers set up The Fed then that is their problem

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Meh, the advantages of having a renewed and refreshed management board far outweigh the cost of getting rid of the old guard. $20 million is a small price to pay for a chance to turn these trillion-dollar behemoths around towards saleable status. In any case, this encourages other boards, such as the likes of Lehmans, to accept the terms of federal deals since they can be confident of a reasonable settlement. We must be pragmatic about this.

Sorry this is part of the problem in Corporate land. If squads of bricklayers are not delivering, ie doing the job, they are paid off. They don't get a golden handshake. They are told not to come in tomorrow.

This sort of feather bed culture really does not encourage good management. It is rewarding failure.

After limping along for the last few months news has just come through that Lehmans is being sold off by the Central Bank. Ironically, Lehmanns is part owner of the Fed.

Is there any end to this?