Shopping at Amazon?
Wait! If you click on the Amazon banner link at the top of the page first, HCN will get a percentage of anything you purchase for 24 hours!
Open predictions
Our local book authors
User login
Who's online
There are currently 7 members and 167 guests online.
Those damn cherry pickers.
second
"It describes a memorandum one we can't confirm the existence of"
That ain't no denial.
It's nice to see Bacondreamz finally get a minuscule part of the recognition he so richly deserves. Perhaps we should spend a day extolling his awesomeness.
I thing the NY Time article portrayed Freddie Mac as more willing to have risky guidelines even in the face of a deteriorating market. Reading the broker boards the brokers are finding that LP (Freddie) is now the less restrictive underwriting criteria over the newly revamped DU (Fannie).
I think Freddie originations will increase and they will get the loans that Fannie doesn't. Growing into the downturn hasn't worked for any lender yet, I don't think the GSE's should risk trying it either.
From the rebuttal: ... readers deserved more than a superficial tale spun on the purported comments of a collection of anonymous former employees and unspecified "others" likely including the well-worn band of ideologues and self-interested detractors who have opposed the GSE model for years.
Notably lacking: The article made specific reference current and former high-ranking executives.
Danny
That was in 2005. They didn't have email back then. Or so i'm told. So, it is highly likely that someone just tossed the one original and thus it can't be found.
Why would you keep records of what your chief risk officer was doing? Imagine the fuss with all those papers.
Hat tip to bacon dreamz, Lord of the Commenters Who Never Gets Enough Credit
ooh, that's a good hat tip.
Still beating on this dead horse?
What now? Freddie can't seem to find this memo, so that means Freddie is lying and the memo is real?
My question: Did Andrukonis provide a copy of the memo to the reporter? If so, then why didn't the reporter give a copy to Freddie? It's not like he's protecting a source, since Andrukonis went on record.
Give them the memo so they have something (title, date, key verbiage, CCs) to search for. Does anyone think it would be bad journalistic practice for the reporter to have done that?
Tanta loves bacon dreamz
Tanta loves bacon dreamz
we need a quarter point hike
I'll third that.
I will say this about NY Times. They have the best "ombudsman" service in the business -- an independent scribe who looks at situations like this closely and objectively and then opines whether or not the Times was fair (in the pages of the NY Times itself). Lately, he has more often than not decided the Times was not at all fair or balanced.
So, you have to give some credit to a newspaper that would give this air time to an internal critic. Let's see what he says about this story.
People who remember Daniel Okrent are just a bit less willing to give the Times "credit" for having an ombudsman.
rate unchanged...
now back to the FRE lovefest.
OK, the Times readers "deserve more." But are the fundamental assertions of the article incorrect?
Shocker. Stays at 2%
fed-rates held...
I am learning that breezy, careless innuendo serves as a good Viagra substitute for those who lack adequate Blue Cross coverage.
Congrats bacon.
Fascinating comments. I'm a bit surprised to see so many people taking the NYT's side on this--usually they get bashed bloody whenever they are mentioned.
At our newspaper (Bellingham, WA Herald)
unnamed sources have been pretty much outlawed for years in local stories. (Exceptions to our prohibition do exist, but more in theory than in practice.)
This story is a pretty good example of the pitfalls of unnamed sources.
I am learning that breezy, careless innuendo serves as a good Viagra substitute for those who lack adequate Blue Cross coverage.
You too?
"It describes a memorandum one we can't confirm the existence of, one we don't believe Mr. Syron ever saw, and one that Mr. Duhigg never produced for us."
It's clear here that Syron is hiding something by challenging someone to produce evidence.
Tanta is an appologist for (enter organization's name here). She must have an ax to grind.
axe
This frankness is the flipside of Freddie's helpfulness. As a reporter who has tried to deal with both Fannie and Freddie, I've found the Fannie people to be rude and unhelpful, always. They have a bad case of Beltway Syndrome -- if you don't have a phone number in the 202 or 703 area codes, you are ignored and condescended to.
Freddie's PR folks are responsive and forthright. You see the forthrightness in this news release.
I was also pretty impressed that FRE came out and said the guy was fired, that they told the reporter the guy had been fired, and that the reporter did not include this in his story.
Very often companies won't confirm that someone has been involuntarily terminated because they don't want to get sued.
Is it OK for a journalist to leave out a fact like that that has some bearing on evaluating the source's credibility or motives?
As a service to several commenters who struggle with reading comprehension, the Times story says:
That chief executive, Richard F. Syron, in 2004 received a memo from Freddie Macs chief risk officer warning him that the firm was financing questionable loans that threatened its financial health.
Not "allegedly" received. Not, "according to an employee who was involuntarily terminated." Not, "although Freddie Mac states it is unable to find any record of this memo."
Not until the fifth paragraph do we learn the assertion comes from Mr. Andrukonis and "two others familiar with the document."
His wife and daughters, perhaps? Readers remain free to guess.
give it a rest.....
Regardless of the existence of this memo it didn't take a rocker scientist to figure out that Syron decided to operate that place exactly as a hedge fund.
I don't need someone to tell me that the tooth fairy doesn't exist....
He is where the buck stops and the results, whatever he may say, are there for all to see. They seemed to learn quite a bit at practicing plausible deniability
If Mr. Syron was such a great CEO then why are we being asked....no TOLD that we have to backstop them with $25B and then raise the debt ceiling by $800b.
Syron is a putz and like many of his ilk are just blaming others.
Tanta----you know better (I think)
Ciao
MS
Tough talk from a firm that's technically insolvent.
Based on his bio Andrukonis had the perfect background to known when standards were slipping. Looks to me that a new CEO meet an experienced company insider who was in his way to fix the company by growing the business when fundamentals dictated to shrink. Conflicts then lead to involuntary termination. A few years later: "told you so".
From Fobes (what Freddie said in the old days): David A. Andrukonis was appointed Senior Vice President and Chief Enterprise Risk Officer in October 2003. Prior to that he served as Senior Vice President of Single-Family Capital Deployment from September 2001 through October 2003. He also served as Senior Vice President and Chief Credit Officer from August 1998 through September 2001. Prior to that, he held various positions at our company since joining us in 1980
"self-interested detractors who have opposed the GSE model for years"
You mean, like the tens of millions of taxpayers who are being financially raped to "preserve" the GSE "model" (heads we win/tails everyone else loses)?
I don't believe what I read in the paper OR in the press releases of companies defending their dismal records.
Both should be greeted with super extra healthy skepticism.
I saw you star-ing at each other
I saw your eyes be-gin to glow
And I could tell you once were lov-er's
You ain't hidding nothing I don't know
Re: "In fact, a full review of the facts makes clear that Freddie Mac has helped to keep a bad situation in the housing market from becoming even worse."
Total utter bullshit!
Fannie is a corrupt organization and to defend it is to be collusive, they lied! They continue to lie and they are an entity filled with corruption. How can anyone sit here in honesty and explain away truth?
In late 2004, Fannie Mae was under investigation for its accounting practices. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight released a report [4] on September 20, 2004, alleging widespread accounting errors, including shifting of losses so senior executives could earn bonuses.
Fannie Mae was expected to spend more than $1 billion in 2006 alone to complete its internal audit and bring it closer to compliance. The anticipated restatement was estimated at $10.8 billion, however, after review resulted in $6.3 billion in restated earnings as listed in Fannie Mae's Annual Report on Form 10-K
Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why don't you people focus on the cash that was lost and stolen versus pointing fingers at some employee that was fired. Tell the shareholder what happened to profits and tell wall street and show some details as to why Fannie is insolvent!
ot that I am a reader of the NYT, but I take issue with Freedie's implication that readers have high expectations regarding what is published in the NYT.
Why defend Freddie by saying the guy was fired, and then not giving the reason?
Being fired from Freddie should be a badge of honor, unless he was caught stealing or something, which I think would be difficult for a risk officer.
Since we just have speculatin' to go on, I'd speculate that he was fired because he didn't see the world through Freddie's rose-colored, real- estate-will-appreciate-our-way-out-of this-evil-we-are-doing-with-the-taxpayer's-money, glasses.
John Stark writes:
Fascinating comments. I'm a bit surprised to see so many people taking the NYT's side on this--usually they get bashed bloody whenever they are mentioned.
Yes, the NYT's on the internet list of entities to be reflexively bashed, but it's well below the "G" in "GSE". In the absence of any hispanic-sounding names in the story, that trumps all.
What kind of trash is this from the previous thread?
Re: "I have to wonder why the Times leaves off the part about how Syron is a former deputy assistant Treasury Secretary, asssistant to Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volker, and president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in the late 80s and 90s, which included being a member of the Open Market Committee. None of that makes him perfect or infallible or anything else, of course."
Tanta defending the CEO of a failing corrupt entity? Why? This guy has been a part of the destruction and the crash in shareholder value, why defend him and try to distort his role in leading an entity to total failure? This is retarded and why anyone gives Tanta credit for this shit is AMAZING!!!
As a sign of appreciation, Tanta should send Bacon her "Freddie" umbrella. Only of course, if she remembers she has one.
Note that nowhere in that quote does he dispute any fact of the actual allegations.
I did not read the whole piece but the quote is classic ad hominem, innuendo, and changing the subject.
Not that is some fresh and real honesty....However thanks to the public storm this has created the artcile has got more publicitiy than it deserved.
Anonymous:
it's called trying to be even-handed and fair.
If you want an ideologic hatchet-job, go to Denninger.
Otherwise, be quiet.
Re "changing the subject"
You almost have to wonder if this is PR and a chance to deflect reality into fantasy and then have media shills jump on a scapegoat versus doing some DD on Fannie FRAUD. The story is FANNIE Fraud not mis-dircection and bullshit hype.
As for CalculatedRisk I think they need to do some disclosure here as to the stock positions they have and the agenda for this type of spin on accounting fraud!
October 2003: Freddy puts out the following with Andrukonis signature: Bulletin NUMBER: 2003-6
TO: All Freddie Mac Sellers and Servicers
....
This change will encourage Seller/Servicers to submit data corrections to us on a more timely basis and will
allow for a quicker reconciliation of the settlement funds for Mortgages sold to Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac
remains committed to assisting our Sellers with data issues by providing tools to help identify data delivery
issues earlier, such as the enhanced data correction process via MIDANET and continued Quality Control
reviews.
...
Looks like Andrukonis was taking measures in 2003 to stem the rising tide of lax underwriting.
I'm puzzled how Tanta can fail to identify with the guy.
"Deny" might be better than dispute (in case people want to dispute "dispute").
Maybe the newsletter sales are low??
As this blog has grown in popularity, it has attracted hordes of commenters who are, at the end of the day, just not that bright.
Carry on.
. So on the Fannie/Freddie issue I learn, from Tanta at Calculated Risk, that Fannie and Freddie pushed the envelopes of their charters basically that they were trying to behave like Countrywide, but couldnt quite manage it:
Fannie and Freddie had about as much to with the explosion of high-risk lending as they could get away with. We are all fortunate that they couldnt get away with all that much of it.
Fannie/Freddie further follies - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
Re: As this blog has grown in popularity, it has attracted hordes of commenters who are, at the end of the day, just not that bright.
Tanta's new stories and mentality are obviously geared towards them
The last 2 out of 3 posts on Prof. Richard Green's blog have concerned Phony and Fraudy; one of them is a character reference for Andrukonis and the other an explanation of the important role they serve as punch-mongers.
"Sometimes you need someone to bring the punch bowl back to the party when the guests are threatening to leave."
Richard's Real Estate and Urban Economics Blog
PS: I do not endorse the NYT article either.
AGAIN:
Hoping to hobble the decision making of the two housing agencies, Bush stopped making new appointments to the boards of the GSEs in 2004.
Theres reponsibility here for the mess, isnt there?
Why not more discussion of the Presidents role?
At this point I think it would be just addding to a list of failures of the Bush Administration stretching to the stars. I think Bush could easily be the most inept President in US History. To expect any kind of leadership in financial markets would be silly considering that the leadership we have received in most other crises in the last 7 years has been failing at best.
For Paulson to now want an unrestricted credit line for the GSEs when only a few short months ago he clearly stated that there was no government guarantee on the GSEs is wreckless, silly and goes to show the leaders we have. Would it not have been better to just keep your mouth shut? In the 1930s laws were passed making it illegal to make statements towards financial institutions that could cause panic. Now we have leaders proclaiming that financial institutions should be allowed to fail ..please. I think we would all be better off if the current administration would just sit down and shut up until some real leaders (maybe) take the baton.
Posted by Johnathon
Fannie/Freddie further follies - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
"Sometimes you need someone to bring the punch bowl back to the party when the guests are threatening to leave."
LOL!!
That is a better blog to be sure!!
In an interview, Freddie Macs former chief risk officer, David A. Andrukonis, recalled telling Mr. Syron in mid-2004 that the company was buying bad loans that would likely pose an enormous financial and reputational risk to the company and the country.
Richard's Real Estate and Urban Economics Blog
You know he is a SHITLOAD smarter than TANTA (will ever, ever be) ??
The top people should be booted out, and replaced by executives who have the confidence of the markets, said Janet Tavakoli, a finance industry consultant and observer of both firms. Large Freddie Mac shareholders, speaking on the condition of anonymity, echoed those sentiments.
Janet Tavakoli is a GODESS -- go pick on her, I dare yah!
GODDESS, GODDESS, GODDESS
Re: As this blog has grown in popularity, it has attracted hordes of commenters who are, at the end of the day, just not that bright.
I agree....!!
When you have people like Syron that have been let off easy for their criminal negligence and greed, they deserve no sympathy. We all know how one sided media coverage has been for years.
It's payback time, no wonder few care to give these crooks the benefit of the doubt - as if there's any doubt of the destruction they've caused. Tanta may strive for precision, but let's not pretend these crooks speak the truth.
(Hat tip to bacon dreamz, Lord of the Commenters Who Never Gets Enough Credit)
Hmm, I read other comments, prior to, and during Mortgage Pig posts, that hinted at something happening between this "dreamz" guy and the women known as . Now it has been officially confirmed.
Thank you. Please return to your regularly scheduled programming while I weep as another virtual dream has been dashed upon the rocks of Haloscan,
Curses!
Tanta, I'm really surprised. EVERY time a story like this comes out, the subject of the story waxes hysterically about how the reporter cherry picked (because it was his obligation to tell, virtually undigested, the subject's side of the story?) and discredits named sources as disgruntled. I think the Times probably should have mentioned that whathisface was fired, but when you're writing on a strict word count, you can't crawl down every he said/she said rabbit hole the subject of the piece throws in your path to essentially prevent you from ever filing.
Having read the original story carefully, I'm willing to say it is extremely well-sourced, and to educated guess that the editor was on the phone with at least a dozen current and former employees, getting a holistic portrait of what amounts to neglect of duty, if not abuse of power.
Who is going to do that legwork when the blogosphere successfully heckles the Times off the stage? Really, I'm serious --who? You guys? No.
You'll have a million whinnying pundits and hyper-texting sub-journalists for every work-the-phones reporter, and we'll know about half as much as we do now, about how power actually operates in this country. Congrats.
OK... the messengers are black-hearted scoundrels. Now, on to the message.... was it valid?
something happening between this "dreamz" guy and the women known as . Now it has been officially confirmed.
I think a lot of the posting here is just a loop of the same names going in a circle saying the same thing. I can find stories faster than anyone, but it doesn't matter who is the first to discuss it, post it, rant it, edit it, chop it, paste it, because in the long run, the stories are as unimportant as the results and outcomes. Fannie comes to mind as a story without regulation, without criminal investigations, without audits and accounting honesty -- so what does any of this second, third, 4th, 5th account copy/pasting have to do with retelling a story that was pushed out for PR so that someone could be a shill and defend a crook? Who cares? These blogs are getting very boring and the editors are as stale as the news -- and that is why dumb videos on Youtube have more traffic than this shit!
Lots of heat, very little light. On balance, Tanta winds up sounding more defensive than Syron. Hoocoodaguessed? After so many entertaining, instructive, and occasionally profound posts, this represents a low point for one of my favorite bloggers. We all have bad days; I'll end by saying that I hope for better ones ahead.
From Yahoo: He was doing what the board wanted. They provide the incentives and he earns his bonuses. He is responsible to the board and they direct what he does. His bonuses were large ($38M). Therefore the directors of his company got what they wanted. Everyone I know at every company has incentives and they try to maximize them. Isn't that what you are supposed to do?
Well, the Treasury just hired Morgan Stanley to analyze Freddie and Fannie.
After Syron and company started in late 2003 / early 2004, almost all senior execs at Freddie Mac were shown the door. I am a grunt worker and have little inside scoop, but don't think there is that much reason to believe Andrukonis did anything much to get dismissed. Guess with the previous accounting manipulation, they wanted to get rid of anyone who could have been involved or had knowledge of it.
The thing with Syron and company is they all had little to zero background in credit policy or lending. They got rid of all previous execs and did not try to learn at all from previous policies/strategies at the company. The accounting shenanigans were a disgrace, but Steady Freddie had been a solidly profitable company with fairly sound credit and interest rate risk management.
With the environment at Freddie Mac, I can sympathize with the anonymous sources. I know at internal all hands meetings, people really hesitate to ask tough questions as they fear it makes them a bigger RIF target. Internal communication is comical propaganda, Pravda must have been a little like this.
Below are a few of the facts:
FACTS
- Dick Syron received over $15 million in total compensation in 2007
- Freddie Mac relaxed FICO / LTV standards vis a vis Guarantee and Delivery Fees in the 2006 and 2007 period - worst time possible.
- Freddie Mac holds $150 Billion of non agency Alt A and Subprime MBS in their retained portfolio, what possible mission justification is there for this? Just trying to goose net interest margin for personal gain and now at public expense.
- Dick Syron and crew never admit any fault or offer to return past or defer future multi million dollar compensation payouts. How can Tanta's good guy accept tens of millions in comp while ordinary Americans bail him out? The Syron quotes from the article are obviously picked to make him look bad, but they really seem to reflect the attitude him and his crew have exuded the entire time. How can a responsible leader say things like that?
- Freddie Mac was strongly encouraged in 2007 and early 2008 by the Federal Reserve and OFHEO to raise more capital and failed to do so, some in 2007 but basically minimum required. In 2007 a stock buyback was executed. High dividend maintained to this day. Continued in Spring 2008 to babble about shareholder dilution when taxpayer involvement was close at hand. Guess it will be gone tomorrow but who knows with the nerve of these clowns. Fact is I think he was just trying to protect the value of his restricted stock, but big surprise he failed again.
Geeze, all you New Guys. I don't see Tanta defending Freddie's practices anywhere in this post. Maybe you could argue with something she said?
as an aside, I can't help but note that, while Freddie Mac is in trouble for liberally guaranteeing mortgages during the housing bubble, the NYT is also in serious trouble financially, partially because of poorly written stories like this one, which reinforce the sense that the paper either willingly or ignorantly allows itself to be politically manipulated
sort of like the blind leading the blind, except that I'm sure that there are quite a number of sightless people that posssess a keen financial or journalistic insight, unlike Freddie Mac and the NYT
Re: Freddie Mac holds $150 Billion of non agency Alt A and Subprime MBS in their retained portfolio, what possible mission justification is there for this? Just trying to goose net interest margin for personal gain and now at public expense.
It's called The Bush Stimulus Fund!
Emma,
Thanks for that clarity,
I don't see Tanta defending Freddie's practices anywhere in this post.
I just see Tanta attacking a story she doesn't like, which has to do with Fannie being corrupt, so you are right, Tanta doesn't come right out and defend Fannie fraud, she just had a problem with the fact that someone has done a story about trying to stop the fraud. Si in essence, I agree that Tanta wrote a crappy blog that had nothing to with anything. Sloppy writing always gets you in trouble!
"More than two dozen current and former high-ranking executives at Freddie Mac, analysts, shareholders and regulators said in interviews that Mr. Syron had ignored recommendations that could have helped avoid the current crisis. "
I understand that anonymous sources stink, but this seems legit because they have so many people saying the same thing. we won't know until we get names. what would you do as a reporter if you had high level people in the company that said all this? you'd probably print the story too. FWIW, the NYT knows who they are and trusted them.
anyways, we all know the company would have disregarded the warnings anyway because that's what happens when your company is so bad it looks like it's about to go bust and Hank and Ben bail you out.
anyone think if he read a whole book on why Freddie Mac was in trouble the CEo would have just did the same thing he always did? he gets paid more if he ignores and grows the company like crazy, no?
the larger story is apparently he doesn't know how to run the company because he never thought home prices would decline. he also says if he knew they would decline he wouldn't have been able to do anything anyways. how about you tighten the standards of loans you'd make and loans you'd buy?
" Those and other choices initially paid off for Syron, who has collected more than $38 million in compensation since 2003, the NY Times said."
that about says it all?
Maybe the memo was in with the 5 million emails that were lost at the White House?
There may be some objections to the peice but this is a counter attack hack job. If anything it gives credibility to the initial article. Apparently friends of the CEO decided to leak information about an employee. It makes the firing sound retalitory and malicious.
Anyhow, another smear job by a big business.
Tanta,
I disagree. Syron admitted he had to deal with pressure to loosen standards and he went along with it. Syron also justifies staying on by claiming he wants to recover his legacy, like anyone else gives a sh@#... This egomaniac, maybe because of all those elevated advisory positions he held in the 80s and 90s, should not be running a large company in a crisis. The Andrukonis stuff is just filler material.
This article answers the question why smart people who had smart people advising them, ignored all the warning signs of future trouble.
So Syron's company's PR department issues a rebuttal. What a surpise!
I understand that anonymous sources stink, but this seems legit because they have so many people saying the same thing
substituting quantity for quality
if I can find 15 people who all say that Al Gore has been President since January 2001, does that make it true?
Oh wait this all gets continued in another beat the dead horse thread just posted a few minutes ago:
Note: Please don't miss Tanta's post this morning on the NY Times and Freddie Mac.
"substituting quantity for quality"
absolutely not. are you going to ignore the former chief risk officer and other "high-level" execs a long with others. two dozen btw, not twelve. freddie is I am not mistaken was held by institutions in a big way, does that strengthen the argument too? you example of al gore doesn't have anything to do with this.
my question for you is how many of the 24 people who are high level do you need to take the article seriously?
2?
8?
12?
14?
if you were an editor how many people, who most likely have some credit since they were in or around the company, would you need to make this story legit?
All questions of journalistic integrity aside, FDIC's statement sounds like we're getting into the finger-pointing and nyah-nyah stage of our economic debacle, which is no more productive than denial.
(I'm rather proud of myself juxtaposing polysyllabic words and nyah-nyah in the same sentence. Tanta makes it look so easy.)
The truth is out...Tanta is the Mortgage Pig
Freddie (and Fannie) own subprime because that is the only way they could achieve their affordable housing or mission related goals. I realize that sounds ridiculous, but I think it's true. Govt mandated rules led to the companies taking more risk.
Wow, this one went off!
Tanta, no problem with your pointing out a bit of 'selective' journalism from the NYT (is there any other kind?), but two points please:
C'mon folks, when you're pulling a big trailer load of sh*t, you can smell it. Where was Syron - en route to Damascus?
Tanta, your standing on this blog is unquestioned, but did your satnav blow up here?
Regards,
Sub10
Freddie 1
NY Times 0
Freddie (and Fannie) own subprime because that is the only way they could achieve their affordable housing or mission related goals. I realize that sounds ridiculous, but I think it's true. Govt mandated rules led to the companies taking more risk.
Yep...correctamundo. As the memo notes, Freddie (and Fannie) have to meet low/moderate income lending targets.
F&F are big companies. Risk management writes memos about reducing risk. After the fact, going back and asserting that history could have been different if only management had listened is stating the obvious. You could start with the big banks, the rating agencies, etc. etc. and write the same story.
Among other things, I don't believe any warnings could be solidly backed up with data. Another more or less universal problem with cyclical financials. HIstorical data showing record low defaults would be very very difficult to use as a basis for strengthening underwriting.
I'm well beyond caring whose 'fault' it is.
This is all a big side-show. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have always been huge interest rate and credit risk repositories. Anyone with a basic understanding of lending and economic risk knew that you can't lever to the extent these two GSEs did without exposing yourself to huge risk. I used to read the "stress test" PR releases and think to myself " this has got to be cooked, because you can't have 50 to 1 leverage and expect to survive a three sigma event. And guess what? The reality of the situation is exactly that: You can't.
So where is the stress test analysis that shows how the current market played out? It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because it would have got in the way of a lot of profits and executive bonuses.
Whether some lower-level employee warned Dick Syron is immaterial. Any competent business person should have seen the risks in what was happening in the mortgage finance market. Anyone that went to a cocktail party three years ago and listened to all the boasting from people making $70,000 a year who controlled a million dollars in assets knew this was going to end badly.
This is a classic case of greed and neglect. Syron should be sacked; Franklin Raines should probably go to jail and the Federal Goverment should take over Fannie and Freddie and re-institute sound lending policies and capital requiremets rather than the totally irresponsible free-for-all we've witnessed the last six years.
The GSE bailout is a public disgrace and the American public deserves better; we deserve a major reform of the GSEs and the mortgage banking industry in the wake of this debacle. The industry can't be trusted to its own devices.
Best regards,
I don't understand why Tanta is so quick to side with FRE.
Is there a troll convention in town? What's with all the anonsense? I read that article yesterday, and it clearly doesn't make the best case against Syron or Freddie Mac decisions. Which isn't to say that a good case can't be made.
The Times screwed up on at least 3 objective points:
(1) they fail to point out that the key source for criticism of Syron had in fact been canned;
(2) they didn't provide a copy of the memo to Freddie, nor do they provide it to readers, nor is it clear whether the Times ever even saw it. You would think the most compelling piece of evidence in the story would have slightly more corroboration than, say, Bigfoot;
(3) As Tanta observed yesterday, they gave a ridiculously truncated review of Syron's resume, when he was obviously well-qualified for the job. (whether he met expectations, I will not opine).
All of this makes me far more willing to believe that the Times did in fact quote selectively the bit that Syron was only trying to salvage his reputation.
I believe strongly that one might make a good case that Syron made serious mistakes while at the helm, which will cost taxpayers untold billions. But it is plainly obvious that this article doesn't make that case. So why are all the GSE haters piling on?
Margin Call of Cthulhu,
That was stupid! Your 3 weak points fail to stay focused on the accounting fraud at these GSEs, thus to ignore that reality and fall for the goose chase makes you a retard!
Anonymous,
Like the reporter's sources, you might have a little more credibility if you had even a fraction of a face. Is it too difficult to choose a handle?
Your pedestrian ad hominems also blunder past the only relevant point: I and probably others are willing to entertain evidence of such fraud, but the fact that the reporter - and by extension, his editors - so obviously screwed up on the simple details makes me unwilling to get them the benefit of the doubt on accurately recounting the more complex details of "the accounting fraud," particularly in a story so heavily dependent on anonymous sources.
Re: f you had even a fraction of a face. Is it too difficult to choose a handle
Because I get censored and have to find new names that are not on the block list.....