Clearfield County PA Dems
About the Author
This is a group of Clearfield County PA Democratic Committee members working to energize the local Democratic party and support Deomocratic candidates at all levels of goverment.
This week, I had the opportunity to participate with my fellow 5th district candidates in a forum sponsored by WPSU TV to discuss job creation and economic conditions in the 5th Congressional District. As we fielded questions on the various issues, I paid close attention to how my views on job creation and retention along with overall economic development strategy differed from my opponents. What I heard from my Republican opponent was numerous statements about "incentives" and "tax credits" to entice businesses to locate or expand in the 5th district.
Read More »
And the Winning Ticket Is -- Obama / Biden 08:
Barack Obama made an excellent choice with his selection of Delaware Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate. On Saturday I spent the day working at the Democratic booth at the Centre County Grange Fair and throughout the day people were asking if the announcement had been made. Everyone I spoke with expressed positive opinions about the choice. If this is any indication of the type of qualified people Barack Obama will surround himself with as President, we can all rest assured that our country will be headed in a better direction come January of 2009.

The daily trivia question at the Democratic booth was "What Pennsylvania town was Joe Biden's hometown?" I'm usually pretty good at trivia but Kim Bierly had to tell me the answer was Scranton PA. Read More »
Barack Obama made an excellent choice with his selection of Delaware Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate. On Saturday I spent the day working at the Democratic booth at the Centre County Grange Fair and throughout the day people were asking if the announcement had been made. Everyone I spoke with expressed positive opinions about the choice. If this is any indication of the type of qualified people Barack Obama will surround himself with as President, we can all rest assured that our country will be headed in a better direction come January of 2009.

The daily trivia question at the Democratic booth was "What Pennsylvania town was Joe Biden's hometown?" I'm usually pretty good at trivia but Kim Bierly had to tell me the answer was Scranton PA. Read More »
Campaign Receiving Important Endorsements:
As we move into the fall campaign season, the McCracken for Congress campaign is receiving several important endorsements. Earlier this month we were honored to receive the endorsement from the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO. This is a key endorsement from an organization that is a leader in supporting the rights of the working people, not only in the 5th district, but in Pennsylvania and across the nation. Read More »
As we move into the fall campaign season, the McCracken for Congress campaign is receiving several important endorsements. Earlier this month we were honored to receive the endorsement from the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO. This is a key endorsement from an organization that is a leader in supporting the rights of the working people, not only in the 5th district, but in Pennsylvania and across the nation. Read More »
Drill Here, Drill Now -- But What Are The Oil Companies Planning?
Nationally, Drill Here, Drill Now seems to be the only issue where Republicans are gaining any traction with voters during 2008. For those who donâ��t know, Drill Here, Drill Now started on the website www.americansolutions.com. A couple of mouse clicks on the American Solutions website will take you to a screen with friendly welcome from none other than former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Read More »
Nationally, Drill Here, Drill Now seems to be the only issue where Republicans are gaining any traction with voters during 2008. For those who donâ��t know, Drill Here, Drill Now started on the website www.americansolutions.com. A couple of mouse clicks on the American Solutions website will take you to a screen with friendly welcome from none other than former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Read More »
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says her defeating Barack Obama at a contested Democratic National Convention “is not going to happen” but she is looking for a way for her delegates to vent before getting behind the future nominee ahead of the November election.
Clinton, who battled Obama for 18 months but came up shy of the delegate votes needed to capture the nomination, told a mostly female group of backers at a California fundraiser last week that she wants unity in the party, but she is asked every day whether she will put her name on the ballot.
Clinton said that her delegates want to have a role and feel that their “legitimacy is validated,” before the group moves forward to back Obama.
“I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views respected. I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified,” Clinton, D-N.Y., said to applause.
“Because I know from just what I’m hearing, that there’s incredible pent-up desire. And I think that people want to feel like, ‘OK, it’s a catharsis, we’re here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Senator Obama.’ That is what most people believe is the best way to go,” she said.
“Doesn’t work that way,” shouted one supporter. The video clip of her remarks was posted on YouTube accompanied by the one-word remark, PUMA, an acronym for a group of Clinton supporters who have not committed to Obama. PUMA stands for “Party Unity My A".”
Click here to see the YouTube video of Clinton.
In the video, Clinton, who endorsed Obama on June 7 after the final Democratic primary, said that she is fully behind Obama and actually has offered more help to him than other candidates have done for other nominees in previous years.
“I think it’s fair to say if you look at recent history, I have moved more quickly and done more on behalf of my opponent than comparable candidates have. And most of them didn’t endorse until the convention,” she said, naming Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, former California Gov. Jerry Brown and former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, all past presidential candidates who lost the party nomination.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton nothing has been decided in terms of the role of Clinton’s delegates. He said Democrats remain united, despite the hard-fought battle between Clinton and Obama.
The Democratic convention is being held in Denver on Aug. 25-28, with the first three nights’ activities taking place at the 21,000-seat Pepsi Center. Obama is expected to accept the nomination at Invesco Field at Mile High, a 75,000-seat stadium where the Denver Broncos play. Convention planners said the venue would demonstrate the massive support Obama commands.
“You don’t have to be a delegate or party insider to witness this historic moment firsthand,” Democratic National Convention Committee CEO Leah Daughtry said, announcing the plans for credentials.
Ticket selection was designed “to showcase the gains the party has made in the West,” she said. Nearly two-thirds of the tickets will go to residents of the West and Southwest, including Colorado, where Democrats have made inroads in recent elections.
But several of Clinton’s supporters are insistent that the former first lady get a vote on the convention floor. One self-identified delegate at the California fundraiser said a petition had been formed to put Clinton’s name on the ballot.
Clinton did not oppose that idea, but said it won’t change the outcome.
“I have made it very clear that I am supporting Senator Obama and we’re working cooperatively on a lot of different matters, but I think that delegates can decide to do this on their own. They don’t need permission. They can decide under the rules of the DNC, and so I think it would be better if we had a plan that actually we put in place and everybody knew what it was and then we executed it because I just think that would go more smoothly,” she said.
Former Clinton campaign manager and Howard Wolfson also obliquely acknowledged Thursday that relations between Clinton’s and Obama’s delegates aren’t all roses and sunshine.
“You know the these two people ran against each other for 18 months there were some moments of … friction as you might imagine,” he said, stressing that Clinton is doing her part to contribute to Obama’s election.
“If you have some people that are concerned that they are not getting the respect that they are looking for, that the party not quite yet unified, what is the way to bring those people back into the party to make sure that they are enthusiastically supporting Senator Obama by the time the November election comes around? And one possible way of doing that is to have roll call that has Senator Clinton’s name placed in nomination, that is one option. There are other options and I think that the important thing is that this is going to get decided between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama in a way that I think both can agree unifies the party and bring people together,” he said.
Democratic strategist Bob Beckel added that a vote for Clinton would help relieve some of the tension between the Obama and Clinton delegates.
“They can’t stop them if they want to do it. They cast their vote for Hillary Clinton and before the final roll call is finished they are going to go back through and make it unanimous by state. That’s one way I think to let a little bit of the pressure out of this pressure cooker, but it’s there. I mean it’s bound to be. You can’t have a convention with 1,800 delegates out of 4,400 be for somebody else and not expect there is still going to be some latent animosity,” Beckel said.
Clinton is expected to deliver a prime-time address to delegates on Aug. 26, the second night of the gathering. Typically the vice presidential nominee delivers the address on the third night of the convention.
Clinton, who battled Obama for 18 months but came up shy of the delegate votes needed to capture the nomination, told a mostly female group of backers at a California fundraiser last week that she wants unity in the party, but she is asked every day whether she will put her name on the ballot.
Clinton said that her delegates want to have a role and feel that their “legitimacy is validated,” before the group moves forward to back Obama.
“I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views respected. I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified,” Clinton, D-N.Y., said to applause.
“Because I know from just what I’m hearing, that there’s incredible pent-up desire. And I think that people want to feel like, ‘OK, it’s a catharsis, we’re here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Senator Obama.’ That is what most people believe is the best way to go,” she said.
“Doesn’t work that way,” shouted one supporter. The video clip of her remarks was posted on YouTube accompanied by the one-word remark, PUMA, an acronym for a group of Clinton supporters who have not committed to Obama. PUMA stands for “Party Unity My A".”
Click here to see the YouTube video of Clinton.
In the video, Clinton, who endorsed Obama on June 7 after the final Democratic primary, said that she is fully behind Obama and actually has offered more help to him than other candidates have done for other nominees in previous years.
“I think it’s fair to say if you look at recent history, I have moved more quickly and done more on behalf of my opponent than comparable candidates have. And most of them didn’t endorse until the convention,” she said, naming Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, former California Gov. Jerry Brown and former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, all past presidential candidates who lost the party nomination.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton nothing has been decided in terms of the role of Clinton’s delegates. He said Democrats remain united, despite the hard-fought battle between Clinton and Obama.
The Democratic convention is being held in Denver on Aug. 25-28, with the first three nights’ activities taking place at the 21,000-seat Pepsi Center. Obama is expected to accept the nomination at Invesco Field at Mile High, a 75,000-seat stadium where the Denver Broncos play. Convention planners said the venue would demonstrate the massive support Obama commands.
“You don’t have to be a delegate or party insider to witness this historic moment firsthand,” Democratic National Convention Committee CEO Leah Daughtry said, announcing the plans for credentials.
Ticket selection was designed “to showcase the gains the party has made in the West,” she said. Nearly two-thirds of the tickets will go to residents of the West and Southwest, including Colorado, where Democrats have made inroads in recent elections.
But several of Clinton’s supporters are insistent that the former first lady get a vote on the convention floor. One self-identified delegate at the California fundraiser said a petition had been formed to put Clinton’s name on the ballot.
Clinton did not oppose that idea, but said it won’t change the outcome.
“I have made it very clear that I am supporting Senator Obama and we’re working cooperatively on a lot of different matters, but I think that delegates can decide to do this on their own. They don’t need permission. They can decide under the rules of the DNC, and so I think it would be better if we had a plan that actually we put in place and everybody knew what it was and then we executed it because I just think that would go more smoothly,” she said.
Former Clinton campaign manager and Howard Wolfson also obliquely acknowledged Thursday that relations between Clinton’s and Obama’s delegates aren’t all roses and sunshine.
“You know the these two people ran against each other for 18 months there were some moments of … friction as you might imagine,” he said, stressing that Clinton is doing her part to contribute to Obama’s election.
“If you have some people that are concerned that they are not getting the respect that they are looking for, that the party not quite yet unified, what is the way to bring those people back into the party to make sure that they are enthusiastically supporting Senator Obama by the time the November election comes around? And one possible way of doing that is to have roll call that has Senator Clinton’s name placed in nomination, that is one option. There are other options and I think that the important thing is that this is going to get decided between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama in a way that I think both can agree unifies the party and bring people together,” he said.
Democratic strategist Bob Beckel added that a vote for Clinton would help relieve some of the tension between the Obama and Clinton delegates.
“They can’t stop them if they want to do it. They cast their vote for Hillary Clinton and before the final roll call is finished they are going to go back through and make it unanimous by state. That’s one way I think to let a little bit of the pressure out of this pressure cooker, but it’s there. I mean it’s bound to be. You can’t have a convention with 1,800 delegates out of 4,400 be for somebody else and not expect there is still going to be some latent animosity,” Beckel said.
Clinton is expected to deliver a prime-time address to delegates on Aug. 26, the second night of the gathering. Typically the vice presidential nominee delivers the address on the third night of the convention.
As the one-year anniversary of the housing and credit crunch approaches, investors in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have nothing to celebrate. They won’t see an end to the losses at these mortgage finance giants until after next year.
Moreover, a report from the regulator of the two mortgage finance giants gives embarrassing new detail on how Fannie (FNM: 12.25, +0.42, +3.55%) and Freddie (FRE: 7.94, +0.42, +5.58%) were mindlessly gunning the securitization engines well after the housing bubble had burst and Wall Street backed off.
Freddie Mac will report its second-quarter financial results Wednesday. Fannie Mae will release its results on Friday. Freddie Mac’s shares are down 88% this year, while Fannie’s shares have dropped 83%. More losses and writedowns for the two are likely on the way.
The Office of Housing Enterprise and Oversight says in a new report that the two combined own about $217 bn in securities minted by Wall Street firms that are backed by the shakiest home mortgages dating to 2004 and 2005, the height of the housing bubble.
The mortgages here are subprime and Alt-A loans, just a notch above subprime. To the extent that Wall Street firms book fair value losses on this pool, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have to do so as well,” OFHEO says.
As delinquencies and defaults on subprime loans continue, and increasingly even prime loans bellyflop, Fannie and Freddie will continue to book losses into 2009, says Credit Suisse. Some analysts say they may lose an additional $24 bn or more.
This should alarm both taxpayers and investors across the country.
Elected officials enacted a $300 bn housing bailout bill that gives these two carte blanche without any statutory limits on their colossal $5.3 tn book of business (Lehman Bros says the two have another $3.3 tn in hedges, among other items, off the balance sheet). The two have reported more than $11 bn in pre-tax losses over the last three quarters and have a history of accounting misdeeds (on a fair value basis, Fannie incurred a loss of $13.3 bn, Freddie, $24.7 bn, OFHEO says).
The housing rescue now lets the government inject tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into these two publicly traded companies, who clearly have failed in their fiduciary responsibilities. The government can now use tax dollars to buy unlimited equity stakes in the companies and their bonds if needed.
The thinking is, the Treasury will simply mint more debt and use that resulting capital to inject more liquidity into Fannie and Freddie, despite their history of accounting misdeeds, losses, misstatements and repeated dilutive equity raises that prove that these two companies do not know what they are doing. Also, the two can now borrow at the Federal Reserve.
Fear is now rampant that if the rescue doesn’t work, the US government must spend more than what the Congress said it would cost to bolster Fannie and Freddie, $25 bn, a sum it cooked up in order to sell the $300 bn housing bailout bill.
Remember, the government’s estimate of the cost to taxpayers for the S&L crisis rose from an initial $50 bn to more than $124.6 bn (not inflation adjusted).
More importantly, Congress spitballed that $25 bn number even though just this past month it sent in bureaucrats from the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to go find out what the heck is really sitting on Fannie and Freddie’s books, as it clearly doesn’t believe the management at these two levered up examples of crony capitalism.
The fear is, too, that the government may have to swallow these two obesities, causing the US dollar to plunge in anticipation of the need to mint more dollars, creating more inflation (not to mention the $99 tn in unfunded liabilities at Social Security and Medicare, according to Fed stats).
In effect, US taxpayers have been loaded into the backseat of Congress’s spaceship pointed directly at the center of the sun.
Because the market believes the US government has given Fannie and Freddie an “implicit guarantee”of their debt, for years both have used that backing to execute a sweet carry trade, where they can borrow money much more cheaply than banks and then turn around and use that money to buy things such as higher-yielding mortgage-backed securities from lenders, in turn injecting liquidity into the lending system to make more loans. The two also sell guarantees against defaults on loans for a fee.
For years, Wall Street believed their obligations were “nearly as good as Treasurys themselves,” notes Dennis Gartman of The Gartman Letter. Indeed, their securities traded as if the government backed them, and US government debt traded as if the government did not back them.
Fannie Mae was born in 1938 as part of FDR’s New Deal to get the country out of the Great Depression and provide home ownership. Back then, millions of Americans were struggling to buy homes, and also faced foreclosures, as banks weren’t lending and mortgage money had dried up.
For years Fannie sat on the government’s books, helping to expand the real estate industry. In 1968, the LBJ administration, worried about the effect of the Vietnam War on the federal budget, moved Fannie Mae off the government’s books, and Fannie became a publicly traded company.
When the savings-and-loan industry wanted its own mortgage financing creature to play with beginning in 1968, Congress obliged and in 1970 Freddie Mac was born. The two quasi-socialist mortgage finance giants then became to the US economy what off-balance sheet vehicles were to Enron, Gartman says.
When Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were limited in the dollar amount of mortgages they could buy and securitize, to $417,000, in the ‘90s, Wall Street stepped in to securitize these loans.
Wall Street then manufactured all sorts of subprime paper, paid the credit ratings agencies to get rosy ratings, and then sold this drunken daisy chain of paper to all sorts of unwitting investors from here to the Arctic Circle, now sitting as landfill in portfolios run by pension funds, hedge funds and local governments.
Wall Street firms then kept a sizable slug of this bad paper off their balance sheets to keep financial results rosy, and then wrote themselves sweet bonus checks off the goosed-up numbers.
So Wall Street, with the help of Fannie and Freddie, shot these risky loans into the ether, thus breaking the bond between the overseer, meaning the lender, and the borrower. Why care about monitoring a borrower who has no skin in the game with a zero-down mortgage when you’ve entirely offloaded that loan as a security?
As far back as 1987 the Financial Accounting Standards Board warned there was no adequate way to value these derivatives, and now Frankenstein derivatives are sluicing financial poison through the system.
Then Fannie and Freddie itself started buying Wall Street’s mortgage backed securities, securities backed by zombie loans given by banks such as Countrywide Financial (CFC), which already had pointed its conveyor belt of bad loans at Wall Street.
When the credit markets seized up in 2007, Wall Street stopped doing much of these securitization deals as its recycling machine for these cut and paste jobs had sand thrown in its gears.
But as Wall Street stepped back, check out how Fannie and Freddie stepped in big time.
OFHEO says in its recent report that while the volume of single-family mortgatges securitized in 2007 fell by 8% to $1.9 tn, as the number of single family mortgages originated declined, “Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s combined share of MBS [mortgage-backed securities] issuance rose substantially to 61.6% from 46.7% in 2006.”
Indeed, OFHEO says Fannie and Freddie “increased their MBS issuance by nearly one-third in 2007 as competition” from Wall Street “virtually ceased in the second half of the year,” though OFHEO says the two started to curtail their purchases of securities backed by shoddy loans. Too little too late.
Now teetering atop Fannie’s and Freddie’s painfully razor thin $54 bn in net worth is a pyramid of $5.3 tn in debt that is nearly half the size of the US gross domestic product. The two have much higher leverage ratios than banks or hedge funds, but lower borrowing costs due to their implicit government backing. The two whittled down their capital cushions after they gunned their lobbying engines on Capitol Hill, showering elected officials with money.
JPMorgan Chase (JPM: 41.10, +0.96, +2.39%) or Bank of America (BAC: 33.69, +1.07, +3.28%), for example, have almost as much bank-level capital as these two “combined supporting one fifth of the commitments,” says the research website The Institutional Risk Analyst, published by Lord, Whalen LLC.
So the fear is that, as mortgages belly flop right and left and an increasing number of homes go into foreclosure, the two are insolvent. Former Fed official William Poole has said as much of Freddie Mac.
But instead of reining in their colossal, outsized portfolios which has caused such danger to taxpayers, the new housing rescue legislation went in the opposite direction. It would increase the statutory limit on the national debt by $800 bn, to $10.6 tn, as the two would now get to buy and back jumbo loans worth $625,000.
And as economist Edward Yardeni points out (his reports are a must-read), both “have been scrambling to plug all the holes in their huge mortgage portfolios.” Citing the Wall Street Journal, Yardeni notes that at the end of last year, the two “started guaranteeing payments on loans that back mortgage securities held by others to delay recognizing losses on some delinquent loans.”
Yardeni adds that “earlier this year, in their most shocking (desperate) tactic to reduce losses, Fan and Fred started making loans of up to $15,000 to people who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments.”
Here are the stink bombs, potholes and steam pipes bursting in these two reckless publicly traded companies:
*Both have a total of a microscopic"did you see it, did you catch it?"$54bn in net worth, generally assets minus liabilities (don’t listen to the $81 bn figure tossed around for their total capital, that’s a pro forma fake number that doesn’t include certain losses).
*Teetering atop that razor thin wedge is a pyramid of $5.3 tn in debt.
*One stink bomb is the total of $260 bn in securitized assets backed by subprime and Alt-A loans, loans which sit in between subprime and prime. Those sums dwarf their capital positions.
*Freddie has $156.8 bn in level three assets, those illiquid securities it can’t get a pricetag on because no one wants them now. Remember, under US accounting rules, it gets to assign its own values to these assets, they could be worth more, they could be worth less.
*Fannie has $56.1 bn in level three assets, or about a seventh of its fair valued assets.
*Fannie and Freddie have combined debts of $1.59 tn, borrowings they made merely to operate their businesses. Again, that’s against just $54 bn in total net worth. Their guaranteed liabilities were 29 times their net worth at the end of the first quarter.
*They each have $2.25 bn pipelines into the Treasury, which the government now wants to expand.
*Forty years ago, when they went public, Fannie had debt of about $15 bn. Do the math against Fannie’s $804 bn in liabilities today, and the pipelines should be about $120 bn each.
Still believe that $25 bn figure Congress is selling you?
Moreover, a report from the regulator of the two mortgage finance giants gives embarrassing new detail on how Fannie (FNM: 12.25, +0.42, +3.55%) and Freddie (FRE: 7.94, +0.42, +5.58%) were mindlessly gunning the securitization engines well after the housing bubble had burst and Wall Street backed off.
Freddie Mac will report its second-quarter financial results Wednesday. Fannie Mae will release its results on Friday. Freddie Mac’s shares are down 88% this year, while Fannie’s shares have dropped 83%. More losses and writedowns for the two are likely on the way.
The Office of Housing Enterprise and Oversight says in a new report that the two combined own about $217 bn in securities minted by Wall Street firms that are backed by the shakiest home mortgages dating to 2004 and 2005, the height of the housing bubble.
The mortgages here are subprime and Alt-A loans, just a notch above subprime. To the extent that Wall Street firms book fair value losses on this pool, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have to do so as well,” OFHEO says.
As delinquencies and defaults on subprime loans continue, and increasingly even prime loans bellyflop, Fannie and Freddie will continue to book losses into 2009, says Credit Suisse. Some analysts say they may lose an additional $24 bn or more.
This should alarm both taxpayers and investors across the country.
Elected officials enacted a $300 bn housing bailout bill that gives these two carte blanche without any statutory limits on their colossal $5.3 tn book of business (Lehman Bros says the two have another $3.3 tn in hedges, among other items, off the balance sheet). The two have reported more than $11 bn in pre-tax losses over the last three quarters and have a history of accounting misdeeds (on a fair value basis, Fannie incurred a loss of $13.3 bn, Freddie, $24.7 bn, OFHEO says).
The housing rescue now lets the government inject tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into these two publicly traded companies, who clearly have failed in their fiduciary responsibilities. The government can now use tax dollars to buy unlimited equity stakes in the companies and their bonds if needed.
The thinking is, the Treasury will simply mint more debt and use that resulting capital to inject more liquidity into Fannie and Freddie, despite their history of accounting misdeeds, losses, misstatements and repeated dilutive equity raises that prove that these two companies do not know what they are doing. Also, the two can now borrow at the Federal Reserve.
Fear is now rampant that if the rescue doesn’t work, the US government must spend more than what the Congress said it would cost to bolster Fannie and Freddie, $25 bn, a sum it cooked up in order to sell the $300 bn housing bailout bill.
Remember, the government’s estimate of the cost to taxpayers for the S&L crisis rose from an initial $50 bn to more than $124.6 bn (not inflation adjusted).
More importantly, Congress spitballed that $25 bn number even though just this past month it sent in bureaucrats from the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to go find out what the heck is really sitting on Fannie and Freddie’s books, as it clearly doesn’t believe the management at these two levered up examples of crony capitalism.
The fear is, too, that the government may have to swallow these two obesities, causing the US dollar to plunge in anticipation of the need to mint more dollars, creating more inflation (not to mention the $99 tn in unfunded liabilities at Social Security and Medicare, according to Fed stats).
In effect, US taxpayers have been loaded into the backseat of Congress’s spaceship pointed directly at the center of the sun.
Because the market believes the US government has given Fannie and Freddie an “implicit guarantee”of their debt, for years both have used that backing to execute a sweet carry trade, where they can borrow money much more cheaply than banks and then turn around and use that money to buy things such as higher-yielding mortgage-backed securities from lenders, in turn injecting liquidity into the lending system to make more loans. The two also sell guarantees against defaults on loans for a fee.
For years, Wall Street believed their obligations were “nearly as good as Treasurys themselves,” notes Dennis Gartman of The Gartman Letter. Indeed, their securities traded as if the government backed them, and US government debt traded as if the government did not back them.
Fannie Mae was born in 1938 as part of FDR’s New Deal to get the country out of the Great Depression and provide home ownership. Back then, millions of Americans were struggling to buy homes, and also faced foreclosures, as banks weren’t lending and mortgage money had dried up.
For years Fannie sat on the government’s books, helping to expand the real estate industry. In 1968, the LBJ administration, worried about the effect of the Vietnam War on the federal budget, moved Fannie Mae off the government’s books, and Fannie became a publicly traded company.
When the savings-and-loan industry wanted its own mortgage financing creature to play with beginning in 1968, Congress obliged and in 1970 Freddie Mac was born. The two quasi-socialist mortgage finance giants then became to the US economy what off-balance sheet vehicles were to Enron, Gartman says.
When Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were limited in the dollar amount of mortgages they could buy and securitize, to $417,000, in the ‘90s, Wall Street stepped in to securitize these loans.
Wall Street then manufactured all sorts of subprime paper, paid the credit ratings agencies to get rosy ratings, and then sold this drunken daisy chain of paper to all sorts of unwitting investors from here to the Arctic Circle, now sitting as landfill in portfolios run by pension funds, hedge funds and local governments.
Wall Street firms then kept a sizable slug of this bad paper off their balance sheets to keep financial results rosy, and then wrote themselves sweet bonus checks off the goosed-up numbers.
So Wall Street, with the help of Fannie and Freddie, shot these risky loans into the ether, thus breaking the bond between the overseer, meaning the lender, and the borrower. Why care about monitoring a borrower who has no skin in the game with a zero-down mortgage when you’ve entirely offloaded that loan as a security?
As far back as 1987 the Financial Accounting Standards Board warned there was no adequate way to value these derivatives, and now Frankenstein derivatives are sluicing financial poison through the system.
Then Fannie and Freddie itself started buying Wall Street’s mortgage backed securities, securities backed by zombie loans given by banks such as Countrywide Financial (CFC), which already had pointed its conveyor belt of bad loans at Wall Street.
When the credit markets seized up in 2007, Wall Street stopped doing much of these securitization deals as its recycling machine for these cut and paste jobs had sand thrown in its gears.
But as Wall Street stepped back, check out how Fannie and Freddie stepped in big time.
OFHEO says in its recent report that while the volume of single-family mortgatges securitized in 2007 fell by 8% to $1.9 tn, as the number of single family mortgages originated declined, “Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s combined share of MBS [mortgage-backed securities] issuance rose substantially to 61.6% from 46.7% in 2006.”
Indeed, OFHEO says Fannie and Freddie “increased their MBS issuance by nearly one-third in 2007 as competition” from Wall Street “virtually ceased in the second half of the year,” though OFHEO says the two started to curtail their purchases of securities backed by shoddy loans. Too little too late.
Now teetering atop Fannie’s and Freddie’s painfully razor thin $54 bn in net worth is a pyramid of $5.3 tn in debt that is nearly half the size of the US gross domestic product. The two have much higher leverage ratios than banks or hedge funds, but lower borrowing costs due to their implicit government backing. The two whittled down their capital cushions after they gunned their lobbying engines on Capitol Hill, showering elected officials with money.
JPMorgan Chase (JPM: 41.10, +0.96, +2.39%) or Bank of America (BAC: 33.69, +1.07, +3.28%), for example, have almost as much bank-level capital as these two “combined supporting one fifth of the commitments,” says the research website The Institutional Risk Analyst, published by Lord, Whalen LLC.
So the fear is that, as mortgages belly flop right and left and an increasing number of homes go into foreclosure, the two are insolvent. Former Fed official William Poole has said as much of Freddie Mac.
But instead of reining in their colossal, outsized portfolios which has caused such danger to taxpayers, the new housing rescue legislation went in the opposite direction. It would increase the statutory limit on the national debt by $800 bn, to $10.6 tn, as the two would now get to buy and back jumbo loans worth $625,000.
And as economist Edward Yardeni points out (his reports are a must-read), both “have been scrambling to plug all the holes in their huge mortgage portfolios.” Citing the Wall Street Journal, Yardeni notes that at the end of last year, the two “started guaranteeing payments on loans that back mortgage securities held by others to delay recognizing losses on some delinquent loans.”
Yardeni adds that “earlier this year, in their most shocking (desperate) tactic to reduce losses, Fan and Fred started making loans of up to $15,000 to people who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments.”
Here are the stink bombs, potholes and steam pipes bursting in these two reckless publicly traded companies:
*Both have a total of a microscopic"did you see it, did you catch it?"$54bn in net worth, generally assets minus liabilities (don’t listen to the $81 bn figure tossed around for their total capital, that’s a pro forma fake number that doesn’t include certain losses).
*Teetering atop that razor thin wedge is a pyramid of $5.3 tn in debt.
*One stink bomb is the total of $260 bn in securitized assets backed by subprime and Alt-A loans, loans which sit in between subprime and prime. Those sums dwarf their capital positions.
*Freddie has $156.8 bn in level three assets, those illiquid securities it can’t get a pricetag on because no one wants them now. Remember, under US accounting rules, it gets to assign its own values to these assets, they could be worth more, they could be worth less.
*Fannie has $56.1 bn in level three assets, or about a seventh of its fair valued assets.
*Fannie and Freddie have combined debts of $1.59 tn, borrowings they made merely to operate their businesses. Again, that’s against just $54 bn in total net worth. Their guaranteed liabilities were 29 times their net worth at the end of the first quarter.
*They each have $2.25 bn pipelines into the Treasury, which the government now wants to expand.
*Forty years ago, when they went public, Fannie had debt of about $15 bn. Do the math against Fannie’s $804 bn in liabilities today, and the pipelines should be about $120 bn each.
Still believe that $25 bn figure Congress is selling you?
White House Announces Bush Administration to Leave a Record Budget Deficit of $482 Billion.
Since January when we began our campaign for the 5th District seat in the US Congress, I've consistently stressed that my biggest concern is the fiscal mess that has happened in Washington. This week, White House officials admitted the Bush administration would leave office in January 2009 with a record budget deficit sitting on the books of $482 BILLION. This record $482 billion deficit is coupled with a record debt of $9.5 trillion.
On January 20th, 2001, when George W. Bush was sworn in to his first term in office and the Republican Party had control of both houses of Congress, the United States government had a record budget surplus, our economy was in a period of record expansion and the national debt was being paid down. In fact, if the Bush administration would have continued the fiscally responsible polices from the 90's by continuing to grow the surplus and pay down the debt, the federal debt could have been retired by 2013. Read More »
Since January when we began our campaign for the 5th District seat in the US Congress, I've consistently stressed that my biggest concern is the fiscal mess that has happened in Washington. This week, White House officials admitted the Bush administration would leave office in January 2009 with a record budget deficit sitting on the books of $482 BILLION. This record $482 billion deficit is coupled with a record debt of $9.5 trillion.
On January 20th, 2001, when George W. Bush was sworn in to his first term in office and the Republican Party had control of both houses of Congress, the United States government had a record budget surplus, our economy was in a period of record expansion and the national debt was being paid down. In fact, if the Bush administration would have continued the fiscally responsible polices from the 90's by continuing to grow the surplus and pay down the debt, the federal debt could have been retired by 2013. Read More »
The budget office predicts the economy will grow at a rate of 1.6 percent this year and will rebound to a 2.2 percent growth rate next year. That's a half percentage point more than predicted but also the widely cited "blue chip" consensus of leading economists. The administration also sees inflation averaging 3.8 percent this year, but easing to 2.3 percent next year " better than the 3.0 percent seen by the blue chip panel.
"The nation's economy has continued to expand and remains fundamentally resilient," said the budget office report.
Senior administration officials downplayed the impact of the number, with one noting that as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product, the deficit projection would be roughly 3 percent to 4 percent.
Another senior administration official said "a lot can happen" in 18 months that could worsen or improve the outlook, such as an improved economy leading to better tax returns, or increased spending under a new administration. The official specifically warned about the impact a Democrats.
"Democrats could blow the doors off spending and drive the deficit even higher," the official said.
Congressional Democratic leaders took aim at the administration " and the Republican candidate for the next administration " for what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called misguided priorities.
"The large budget deficit is a symptom of the many serious problems that Bush-McCain Republicans refuse to address. Rather than continuing the flawed policies that produced this result, Democrats believe we must change course," Reid, D-Nev., said.
Among the problems Reid said Republicans neglected were renewable energy, health care reform, and refocusing military efforts on Afghanistan. "Until we deal with these underlying problems, our budget deficits and the squeeze on Americas families will only get worse."
Likewise, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized what she called unrestrained spending.
"President Bush has mortgaged our future with record deficit spending on the wrong priorities. An unnecessary and extraordinarily costly war in Iraq has turned record surpluses into record deficits. Meanwhile, our economy is in a severe economic slump as a result of this President’s mismanagement," she said.
White House officials said the increase from February's $407 billion projection for the coming year is due largely to a worse economy as well as higher-than-expected costs from the $168 billion economic stimulus package passed by Congress earlier this year.
The highest post-World War II budget deficit, in terms of a portion of the GDP, was in 1983 when it was 6 percent of the national economy. The record high-dollar mark to date was in 2004, when the deficit reached $413 billion.
The new figure actually underestimates the deficit, since it leaves out about $80 billion in war costs. In a break from tradition " and in violation of new mandates from Congress " the White House did not include its full estimate of war costs.
White House press secretary Dana Perino had no comment on the new outlook figure. But she told reporters that the White House and lawmakers acknowledged months ago that they were going to increase the deficit by approving a short-term boost for the slumping economy.
"Both parties recognized that the deficit would increase, and that that was going to be the price that we pay," Perino said.
Officials said revenues are holding up better than officials hoped for the current year: With costs running about $10 billion lower than expected, the budget deficit is expected to be less than $400 billion at the end of the fiscal year this September.
The deficit for 2007 totaled $161.5 billion, which represented the lowest amount of red ink since an imbalance of $159 billion in 2002. The 2002 performance marked the first budget deficit after four consecutive years of budget surpluses.
That stretch of budget surpluses represented a period when the country's finances had been bolstered by a 10-year period of uninterrupted economic growth, the longest period of expansion in U.S. history.
In his first year in office, helped considerably by projections of continuing surpluses, Bush drove through a 10-year, $1.3 trillion package of tax cuts.
However, the country fell into a recession in March 2001 and government spending to fight the war on terrorism contributed to pushing the deficit to a record in dollar terms in 2004.
House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C., said the deficit projection confirms "the dismal legacy of the Bush administration: under its policies, the largest surpluses in history have been converted into the largest deficits in history."
"The nation's economy has continued to expand and remains fundamentally resilient," said the budget office report.
Senior administration officials downplayed the impact of the number, with one noting that as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product, the deficit projection would be roughly 3 percent to 4 percent.
Another senior administration official said "a lot can happen" in 18 months that could worsen or improve the outlook, such as an improved economy leading to better tax returns, or increased spending under a new administration. The official specifically warned about the impact a Democrats.
"Democrats could blow the doors off spending and drive the deficit even higher," the official said.
Congressional Democratic leaders took aim at the administration " and the Republican candidate for the next administration " for what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called misguided priorities.
"The large budget deficit is a symptom of the many serious problems that Bush-McCain Republicans refuse to address. Rather than continuing the flawed policies that produced this result, Democrats believe we must change course," Reid, D-Nev., said.
Among the problems Reid said Republicans neglected were renewable energy, health care reform, and refocusing military efforts on Afghanistan. "Until we deal with these underlying problems, our budget deficits and the squeeze on Americas families will only get worse."
Likewise, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized what she called unrestrained spending.
"President Bush has mortgaged our future with record deficit spending on the wrong priorities. An unnecessary and extraordinarily costly war in Iraq has turned record surpluses into record deficits. Meanwhile, our economy is in a severe economic slump as a result of this President’s mismanagement," she said.
White House officials said the increase from February's $407 billion projection for the coming year is due largely to a worse economy as well as higher-than-expected costs from the $168 billion economic stimulus package passed by Congress earlier this year.
The highest post-World War II budget deficit, in terms of a portion of the GDP, was in 1983 when it was 6 percent of the national economy. The record high-dollar mark to date was in 2004, when the deficit reached $413 billion.
The new figure actually underestimates the deficit, since it leaves out about $80 billion in war costs. In a break from tradition " and in violation of new mandates from Congress " the White House did not include its full estimate of war costs.
White House press secretary Dana Perino had no comment on the new outlook figure. But she told reporters that the White House and lawmakers acknowledged months ago that they were going to increase the deficit by approving a short-term boost for the slumping economy.
"Both parties recognized that the deficit would increase, and that that was going to be the price that we pay," Perino said.
Officials said revenues are holding up better than officials hoped for the current year: With costs running about $10 billion lower than expected, the budget deficit is expected to be less than $400 billion at the end of the fiscal year this September.
The deficit for 2007 totaled $161.5 billion, which represented the lowest amount of red ink since an imbalance of $159 billion in 2002. The 2002 performance marked the first budget deficit after four consecutive years of budget surpluses.
That stretch of budget surpluses represented a period when the country's finances had been bolstered by a 10-year period of uninterrupted economic growth, the longest period of expansion in U.S. history.
In his first year in office, helped considerably by projections of continuing surpluses, Bush drove through a 10-year, $1.3 trillion package of tax cuts.
However, the country fell into a recession in March 2001 and government spending to fight the war on terrorism contributed to pushing the deficit to a record in dollar terms in 2004.
House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C., said the deficit projection confirms "the dismal legacy of the Bush administration: under its policies, the largest surpluses in history have been converted into the largest deficits in history."
Bush signed the paperwork on Monday from the Oval Office, said the officials, who agreed to reveal his decision only on grounds of anonymity. They said he approved the military's request to execute Ronald A. Gray, now 42. Gray was convicted in connection with a spree of four murders and eight rapes in the Fayetteville, N.C., area over eight months in the late 1980s while stationed at Fort Bragg.
U.S. military personnel cannot be executed unless the president approves it. Gray has been on death row since 1988.
U.S. military personnel cannot be executed unless the president approves it. Gray has been on death row since 1988.
A busy week campaigning across the 5th district:
The highlight of the past week was the opening of the Centre County Democratic Campaign Headquarters in State College. Over 200 people were on hand to celebrate the opening that included a round of rousing speeches from candidates and campaign representatives including Greg Stewart and Jay Paterno for the Obama campaign, Auditor General Jack Wagner, State Representative Scott Conklin and candidate for state representative Joanne Tosti-Vasey. I want to thank and congratulate Centre County Democratic Chair Diane Gregg, Greg Stewart, Ben Flatgard and everyone else involved in getting the headquarters up and running. Having a facility like this in downtown State College is going to be a tremendous help to all the candidates and the people who are working on the campaigns. Read More »
The highlight of the past week was the opening of the Centre County Democratic Campaign Headquarters in State College. Over 200 people were on hand to celebrate the opening that included a round of rousing speeches from candidates and campaign representatives including Greg Stewart and Jay Paterno for the Obama campaign, Auditor General Jack Wagner, State Representative Scott Conklin and candidate for state representative Joanne Tosti-Vasey. I want to thank and congratulate Centre County Democratic Chair Diane Gregg, Greg Stewart, Ben Flatgard and everyone else involved in getting the headquarters up and running. Having a facility like this in downtown State College is going to be a tremendous help to all the candidates and the people who are working on the campaigns. Read More »
Reiterating My OPPOSITION to Tolling I-80 as PA Turnpike Commission Reveals Plans to Spend I-80 Toll Money:
This week the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission released details of their plans to repair Interstate 80 using the funds generated from tolls paid by users of the highway. It was stated by the Turnpike Commission and their consultants that "An assessment of the interstate showed that more than half its length has not been repaved since it was built some 40 years ago". In press accounts, Barry J. Schoch, identified as Project Manager, also detailed plans to build a "cashless open road tolling system" that will utilize the EZ Pass system to collect a portion of the tolls. Mr. Schoch also described how vehicles not equipped with EZ Pass will have their tolls collected saying "a driver without E-ZPass will have his or her license plate photographed, generating a mailed-out bill for the vehicle owner". He also stated that this non EZ Pass system "is not currently used on any U.S. highway." Read More »
This week the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission released details of their plans to repair Interstate 80 using the funds generated from tolls paid by users of the highway. It was stated by the Turnpike Commission and their consultants that "An assessment of the interstate showed that more than half its length has not been repaved since it was built some 40 years ago". In press accounts, Barry J. Schoch, identified as Project Manager, also detailed plans to build a "cashless open road tolling system" that will utilize the EZ Pass system to collect a portion of the tolls. Mr. Schoch also described how vehicles not equipped with EZ Pass will have their tolls collected saying "a driver without E-ZPass will have his or her license plate photographed, generating a mailed-out bill for the vehicle owner". He also stated that this non EZ Pass system "is not currently used on any U.S. highway." Read More »
Posts By Month

Posts