I'm Barney Frank and I approve this message
 

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Troubled mortgage giant Fannie Mae planned to pay four top executives retention bonuses ranging from $470,000 to $611,000, according to a February SEC filing.

Executive vice presidents Kenneth Bacon, David Hisey, Michael Williams and Thomas Lund will be receiving bonuses of close to half a million dollars each. Bacon supervises community development for the company, Hisey is its deputy chief financial officer, Williams is its COO and Lund oversees the single-family mortgage business.

Unlike AIG, the government actually TOOK OVER Freddie and Fannie!
If Barney and Dodd still have a job in 2 years I'll give up all hope on the future of this country

Did you see Franks outrage at Liddy in yesterdays questioning of the AIG bonuses? He's a piece of work. First of all, he's part of the reason that AIG is in such a financial mess. A big part of AIG's business is mortgage insurance, which is needed when there isn't a large enough downpayment on a property. That would include a lot of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac loans.

The following is directly from AIG's website.

Benefits of Mortgage Insurance for Mortgage Professionals
Do your clients want it all?

Low payments, no money down, best interest rate, low premiums…

AIG United Guaranty can help.

We offer more of what your clients want and need than any other insurer in the Canadian marketplace. We have made it our vision to be the leader in innovative mortgage insurance products.

More down payment options: AIG United Guaranty offers 5% and 5% Flex down payment options.

More amortization options: AIG United Guaranty offers 35 year amortizations.

AIG United Guaranty’s 12 unique insurance products enable your clients to make lower down payments, buy the home they want today, and have cash available to cover the closing costs and even perhaps that great dining room set they told you they loved.

What does AIG United Guaranty’s commitment to Innovation, Flexibility, and Choice mean for you, the mortgage professional?


More Satisfied Customers = More Referred Customers

How can AIG United Guaranty make this happen for you?

Streamlined application processing though our proprietary application processing system MI Guide – providing intuitive screens flows, drop downs menus and reduced input requirements to simplify the process.
Transparent underwriting guidelines – posted on our MI Guide system which provides you with the most up to date information and benefits.
Experienced and Solution oriented underwriting professionals – offering solutions that are as unique and dynamic as your clients’ needs.
Dedicated and experienced Account Executives – providing training and assistance on MI Advantage products and solutions.

One Partner. Countless Advantages.

Another thing. Do any of the Congressmen questioning Liddy know who put him in charge of AIG and how long he's been running the company?

They should have had Geitner up there and exposed him for covering up the whole bonus mess.

Fannie & Freddie are secondary market entities who deal with banks, not consumers. MI is something "banks" require to insure their interest should you default. It is a racket for sure but your anger is misplaced .

I was under the impression that Fannie and Freddie are involved and therefore responsible. It's their mission to make "the American Dream" a reality by helping people get into homes they can't afford. These people get mortgages that require PMI, which is aquired through companies such as AIG. When people default, the insurance company is required to pay the lender, no?

I've never dealt with PMI, so I could be wrong. I'm just connecting the dots in a long and convoluted mess.

Sometimes connecting those dots comes out with a distorted picture. Fannie & Freddie have actually been arguing against PMI for loans over 80% loan to value for quite some time. This policy results in more "risk" for the Fannie & Freddie portfolio and less $$ for PMI companies... certainly a point for debate.

It's really the exact opposite of what you you stated. Many 1st time buyers are priced out of the market because they can't afford the initial escrow for PMI and the increased monthly payments that will carry forward until that loan is below the 80% LTV ratio. If you look at how your mortgage pmts. are applied heavily towards the interest you realize that most will be paying PMI for a long portion of their mortgage term. Interestingly, the trend in many Gov't sponsored mortgage programs, the MA Soft 2nd Program for example, has been towards "self insured" mortgages rather than requiring PMI. When you say it was Fannie/Freddie's mission to put people into homes they couldn't afford you're ignoring the fact that most mortgage programs "require" debt ratio's in that 33% range. This is where the "stupidy/greed" factor comes into play where people were qualified based on an ARM and where they made some big mistakes in actually buying these loans and in turn selling as mortgage backed securities. It ain't as simple as most people think when you're trying to point fingers at who is at fault.

Thanks for making it a little clearer for me. I get headaches when I try to think too much about this financial mess.

I'm still confused a bit, though. Fannie Mae works with banks to make sure they can fund mortgages to people. Freddie Mac basically does the same thing to ensure that people can get money to buy homes.

Since many of these people still need PMI (whether Fannie and Freddie think they should have to get it or not), doesn't that affect the loan insurers who need to pay in the event of a loan default? That was my whole, albeit messy connection between Frank and AIG.

OK, I know that Barney was in charge of the Fanny May thing and
now he is in charge of AIG thingy ??
Is this the same job ? Please tell me Before I go off and said some bad chit about this guy :hidin:

Who said he was in charge of AIG? I haven't heard anything about that.

Not in charge of AIG, but over looking what happens with it as He did such a great freeking job watching over the Fannie Mae mess.


“In any other area of American life, this track record would get a man run out of town. In Washington, he’s hailed as a sage whose history of willful error will be forgotten faster than taxpayers can write a check for $200 billion.” - The Wall Street Journal on Rep. Barney Frank, Sept. 9, 2008

The only thing more painful than watching 180 billion tax dollars swirl down the AIG drainpipe is listening to Barney Frank bloviate about it.

I don’t know The World’s Most Expensive Legislator personally, but I hear he’s quite a cut-up at cocktail parties. However, as legislator and politician, he is an unmitigated disaster. Frank combines the economic success of AIG, the business ethics of Enron and the personal accountability of Ruth Madoff.

Frank began his career opposing Reaganomics, an opposition that stubbornly resisted 25 years of nearly constant economic growth. In the 1990s, Frank sat on the Banking Committee regulating Fannie Mae, even as his then-partner, Herb Moses, worked as a Fannie exec.

Is it a coincidence that Frank has been a die-hard advocate for expanding Freddie/Fannie at any cost?

Since at least 2002, Frank fought an ever-growing drumbeat of calls to slow down the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac train wreck.

In 2003, he famously said that Freddie and Fannie were “not in a crisis,” that they were “fundamentally sound financially.” He repeated that expert testimony in 2005, all the while rejecting the argument that the taxpayers were responsible for Freddie and Fannie’s bills.

And in 2007, he actually proposed raising the caps on Fannie/Freddie’s portfolios - exposing taxpayers to even more risk - and then dumping the new money into (drum roll, please) even more subprime mortgages.

Less than a year later, the Fannie/subprime/derivatives catastrophe was upon us. And the cheerleader for all three? Our Barney.

Which is why it so astonishes that anyone takes him seriously as the self-declared watchdog of Wall Street. Please, Barney, just shut up.

Frank is great at blustering his way past reporters and his Econ 101 liberal constituency out in Newton. But watching him yesterday afternoon questioning AIG chief Ed Liddy, Frank was revealed as the picayune partisan he truly is.

Where was the “grilling” of this AIG fat cat we were all promised? Where was the “A-ha!” moment as Frank revealed the private-sector greed and corruption behind the bailout mess?

Nothing. “Pitchfork Barney” curled up like a kitten at Liddy’s feet, purred a few inconsequential comments and then slinked away.

If there’s anyone in Massachusetts with the street cred - make that “cash cred” - to lecture the execs of AIG, it’s Joe Petrucelli of East Bridgewater Savings Bank.

Under his leadership, East Bridgewater has no delinquent loans, no homes in foreclosure and even made a profit during the last quarter. And not one thin dime in bailouts, either.

And what did Petrucelli get for his trouble? Slapped with a citation from the FDIC for not making enough “Community Reinvestment Act” loans - also known as “Barney Frank” loans.

Michael Graham hosts a talk show on 96.9 WTKK.
(74) Comments | Post / Read Comments
Next Article in Op-Ed:
Mexico’s drug war has Arizona in cross hairs

VB

no kidding

i just sent him this email

Dear Representative Frank,
I am writing to you today with regards to your recent actions and non-actions involving the bailout money. As a taxpayer and voter in your district I am so upset with how you have handled yourself and the decisions you have made that I am asking for you to resign as Congressman. It is time to have a representative who can make the correct decisions and not be so dramatic about issues. Speaking out after the fact gives no credibility.
Please step down before you embarrass yourself and the state any further.
If you do not I will just have to see what I can do to help find a viable candidate to take your seat.

Thank you for listening,

This board used to be a place where you could state your case and maybe post a link to support your position and hope to open someones eyes to your position on a subject. I've learned a few things and hope that someone might have learned something from my posts. Not any more! Seems we've degraded into..insult, cut and paste the latest BS and insult some more.. many times without the slightest notion about the actual subject underdiscussion.
VYB..don't like to single you out because people on both sides of these discussions have been losing it but...you don't know the difference between Fannie Mae and AIG??..yet you paste this BS from Michael Graham like it was an objective discussion of a complicated problem. Now I'm no Barney Frank fan but to lay the blame for this mess on Barney Frank exclusively is pure political BS. Frank certainly had his head in the sand when he stated he felt GSE's portfolio's were in fine shape but there's plenty of blame to spread around on this one. Try reviewing the role of T.Sec. Snow, question why Mike Oxley (R), who preceded Frank as chair (Frank took over in 07) was ignored by the Bush admin. when he proposed regulation, and see when any regulation was actually proposed. As I said it's a complicated problem that didn't come about through the actions of one man.
Graham (and all the others jumping on this story) comparing EBS with a portfolio of prob. 200 million with any of the players in this crisis is laughable. Because I work in the housing industry I have been requested to comment on the CRA performance of a couple of the larger local savings banks. Performance evaluations can credit things like, servicing non profit group loans, participating in State initiatives, making SB loans, community education, etc. A couple of points about CRA. 1. CRA only comes into play for "depository institutions" not for most of the major mortgage finance agencys or banking houses that we're all hearing about. 2. CRA DOES NOT require the making of sub-prime or risky loans. 3. CRA does grade lenders on their performance in serving their lending and "depositor" area. Think of it in simple terms. Lender X takes deposits from people who live in community X..then they decide they're only going to lend that $ to people who live community Y...it used to be called redlining and was a serious problem. How about that small business loan to promote economic growth in "X"..no thanks ?? The people are putting their money in your bank and you're making $$ off their deposits but your bank doesn't serve X's credit needs? Does anyone think that really right? EBS is lending .28 of every dollar in deposits..that means .72 is going into their investments to make more money for them. I know one thing..if I had a buck to put in my savings account, it wouldn't be in EBS!

Yes, but Barney Frank does talk funny and you know that think about the escort service :faga:

One can only conclude, through logic, that the largest economic crisis in 70 years is completely his responsibility alone to bear.

-spence

you guys need to open your eyes. I can care less if Frank is gay, talks funny or anything else. He is a BIG mouth pointing fingers. Instead of of intellingent, well thought out decisions. He is pushing for a reactive "mob rules" mentailty.
This guy is in charge of banking, you dont make brash decisions in banking! Its been PROVEN that Geithner asked for the bonus language in the stimulus, proven that Dodd made the changes. Yet, Frank doesnt yell at them! Its EVIL AIG.
These guys have made bad decisons in the past, and now they are making them at lightening speed. Is this the change you wanted? Can you honeslty say you are proud of Frank, Geithner and Obama? Like chickens with their heads cut off.

you guys need to open your eyes. I can care less if RIJimmy is gay, talks funny or anything else. He is a BIG mouth pointing fingers. Instead of of intellingent, well thought out discussions..he is pushing for a reactive "mob rules" mentailty.
;-0

I think your anger is (as usual) misplaced.

Dodd authored restrictions on bonus pay, and Treasury requested an exemption to give the bill broader partisan appeal. Aside from the poor communication and PR flap that ensued, the Government didn't really do anything that terrible, but it was AIG who thought the same executives who helped caused the corporation to collapse still deserved their retention pay at taxpayer expense.

So who's more evil here? The government who was trying to do the right thing, but just screwed it up a bit...or the corporation who new what they were doing was ethically wrong, but just didn't really care?

I wouldn't go that far. The challenges they're presently dealing with have few precidents to follow. For all your bitching and moaning about what idiots they are, economists seem to think the market is bottoming and the banking sector is becoming more stable.

You do the math.

-spence

I dont know why I bother.
I give you specific examples, with salaries and tax implications and provide an insiders view of the functions of financial services. the time I take to type these posts is more time than the congress took to pass a bill that penalizes, unjustly, and illegally MILLLIONS of hard working people. think about that for a minute.