Barney Frank is being quite candid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't the American people deserve to know that Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, " I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"?

Isn't the fact that the ranking Democrat in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae was in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive a glaring conflict of interest?

“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. “He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane? The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”

politicians like this that screwed millions of people should just go away

Did Dodd-Frank make a difference? Yes/no.

Did anyone else make bigger strides on this issue? yes/no.

Yes. dodd-frank did help. but it is a regulatory nightmare. and it did not address the risk adequately. The solution is simple, segregate all entities that want FDIC insurance on their deposits into simple , regulated banks, with minimum capital requirements that are somewhat larger than 2.5%

and then sell all the Freddie/Fannie securities and close whatever is left of the organizations.

somehow the rest of the world survives without their gov guaranteeing housing mortgages to china.

This is ridiculous proposal.

why?

Dodd Frank was a Democrat wet dream.

Take the transformation of 11 pages of Dodd-Frank into the so-called “Volcker rule”, which is intended to reduce banks' ability to take excessive risks by restricting proprietary trading and investments in hedge funds and private equity (Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, has argued that such activity contributed to the crisis). In November four of the five federal agencies charged with enacting this rule jointly put forward a 298-page proposal which is, in the words of a banker publicly supportive of Dodd-Frank, “unintelligible any way you read it”. It includes 383 explicit questions for firms which, if read closely, break down into 1,420 subquestions, according to Davis Polk, a law firm. The interactive Volcker “rule map” Davis Polk has produced for its clients has 355 distinct steps.

Because financial institutions have become very complex things and you can't just wave a wand and go back to 1945. You have to propose solutions that address the way the industry, which is global, works now.

ah yes, the because it is very complicated argument and that mere mortals cannot possibly understand.

It really is not that complicated, we need boring, simple banks, with large minimum capital requirements

The big banks need to be split up. Fannie and Freddie need to be dissolved.

I don't understand why this somehow invalidates anything Barney has to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree, sort of. But you also need a firebrand to motivate people up off their butts, push for automatic voter registration, make voting day a holiday or a required half-day with full-day pay or something. C'mon, we can do better than this. The nations that have high voter turnout really do push, push, push--and sometimes require it.

+1 I lived in one of those countries for a while. Election Day is a big deal . . . day off for everyone. People celebrate their democracy. They go vote with friends and then have parties. Nice custom.

Well if you want that to actually happen here, then get off your asses and vote in off years and when it's rainy, and pay attention to some local elections. Bitching about it in the primary season of the Presidential election is worthless. The whole point is you've got to push to make it happen, not just moan about how it ought to be easier to vote in those off years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't the American people deserve to know that Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, " I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"?

Isn't the fact that the ranking Democrat in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae was in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive a glaring conflict of interest?

“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. “He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane? The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”

politicians like this that screwed millions of people should just go away

Did Dodd-Frank make a difference? Yes/no.

Did anyone else make bigger strides on this issue? yes/no.

Yes. dodd-frank did help. but it is a regulatory nightmare. and it did not address the risk adequately. The solution is simple, segregate all entities that want FDIC insurance on their deposits into simple , regulated banks, with minimum capital requirements that are somewhat larger than 2.5%

and then sell all the Freddie/Fannie securities and close whatever is left of the organizations.

somehow the rest of the world survives without their gov guaranteeing housing mortgages to china.

This is ridiculous proposal.

why?

Dodd Frank was a Democrat wet dream.

Take the transformation of 11 pages of Dodd-Frank into the so-called “Volcker rule”, which is intended to reduce banks' ability to take excessive risks by restricting proprietary trading and investments in hedge funds and private equity (Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, has argued that such activity contributed to the crisis). In November four of the five federal agencies charged with enacting this rule jointly put forward a 298-page proposal which is, in the words of a banker publicly supportive of Dodd-Frank, “unintelligible any way you read it”. It includes 383 explicit questions for firms which, if read closely, break down into 1,420 subquestions, according to Davis Polk, a law firm. The interactive Volcker “rule map” Davis Polk has produced for its clients has 355 distinct steps.

Because financial institutions have become very complex things and you can't just wave a wand and go back to 1945. You have to propose solutions that address the way the industry, which is global, works now.

ah yes, the because it is very complicated argument and that mere mortals cannot possibly understand.

It really is not that complicated, we need boring, simple banks, with large minimum capital requirements

The big banks need to be split up. Fannie and Freddie need to be dissolved.

I don't understand why this somehow invalidates anything Barney has to say.

if some one caused you to lose your job and get close to losing your house, are you going to go back to that person for more advice?

he was probably the biggest factor in keeping Fannie and Freddie focusing on low income housing


Congressman Frank was also sexually involved with an executive from Fannie Mae, the government mortgage giant he was in charge of regulating and repeatedly defended as a member of the House Financial Services Committee. Moreover, there was a pre-recession past in which Congressman Frank memorably declared: “I do not want the same kind of safety and soundness” regarding regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, preferring to “roll the dice a little bit.” Indeed, Frank opined in 2004, “I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply in involved in helping low-income housing.” Fast forward to 2008 and who does Mr Frank blame for the recession? “Right-wing Republicans.”

http://stanfordreview.org/article/a-match-made-in-heaven-ethics-with-barney-frank/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't the American people deserve to know that Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, " I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"?

Isn't the fact that the ranking Democrat in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae was in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive a glaring conflict of interest?

“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. “He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane? The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”

politicians like this that screwed millions of people should just go away

Did Dodd-Frank make a difference? Yes/no.

Did anyone else make bigger strides on this issue? yes/no.

Yes. dodd-frank did help. but it is a regulatory nightmare. and it did not address the risk adequately. The solution is simple, segregate all entities that want FDIC insurance on their deposits into simple , regulated banks, with minimum capital requirements that are somewhat larger than 2.5%

and then sell all the Freddie/Fannie securities and close whatever is left of the organizations.

somehow the rest of the world survives without their gov guaranteeing housing mortgages to china.

This is ridiculous proposal.

why?

Dodd Frank was a Democrat wet dream.

Take the transformation of 11 pages of Dodd-Frank into the so-called “Volcker rule”, which is intended to reduce banks' ability to take excessive risks by restricting proprietary trading and investments in hedge funds and private equity (Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, has argued that such activity contributed to the crisis). In November four of the five federal agencies charged with enacting this rule jointly put forward a 298-page proposal which is, in the words of a banker publicly supportive of Dodd-Frank, “unintelligible any way you read it”. It includes 383 explicit questions for firms which, if read closely, break down into 1,420 subquestions, according to Davis Polk, a law firm. The interactive Volcker “rule map” Davis Polk has produced for its clients has 355 distinct steps.

Because financial institutions have become very complex things and you can't just wave a wand and go back to 1945. You have to propose solutions that address the way the industry, which is global, works now.

ah yes, the because it is very complicated argument and that mere mortals cannot possibly understand.

It really is not that complicated, we need boring, simple banks, with large minimum capital requirements

The big banks need to be split up. Fannie and Freddie need to be dissolved.

I don't understand why this somehow invalidates anything Barney has to say.

if some one caused you to lose your job and get close to losing your house, are you going to go back to that person for more advice?

he was probably the biggest factor in keeping Fannie and Freddie focusing on low income housing


Congressman Frank was also sexually involved with an executive from Fannie Mae, the government mortgage giant he was in charge of regulating and repeatedly defended as a member of the House Financial Services Committee. Moreover, there was a pre-recession past in which Congressman Frank memorably declared: “I do not want the same kind of safety and soundness” regarding regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, preferring to “roll the dice a little bit.” Indeed, Frank opined in 2004, “I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply in involved in helping low-income housing.” Fast forward to 2008 and who does Mr Frank blame for the recession? “Right-wing Republicans.”

http://stanfordreview.org/article/a-match-made-in-heaven-ethics-with-barney-frank/

Again, does that invalidate Frank's entire career and Dodd Frank?

[Anonymous]

People like to say break up the banks because it is a simple solution they can understand. It actually is neither possible nor desirable. Better to focus on areas where there are almost no regulation but tons of money like shadow banking and off book assets, much of which is still related to mortgages . People don't like complexity but the financial world is indeed complex. Pretending it isn't just leads to ineffective solutions.

[Anonymous]

Sanders predicts too big to fail in 2000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7fj_n83xZY

Sanders says break up too big to fail institutions 2010, and had proposed an amendment on this issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIO04zYem5o

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sanders predicts too big to fail in 2000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7fj_n83xZY

Sanders says break up too big to fail institutions 2010, and had proposed an amendment on this issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIO04zYem5o

You need to do better than youtube videos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sanders predicts too big to fail in 2000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7fj_n83xZY

Sanders says break up too big to fail institutions 2010, and had proposed an amendment on this issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIO04zYem5o

Ooh! He made a difference! Oh wait. He didn't do anything but yell. Yawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders predicts too big to fail in 2000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7fj_n83xZY

Sanders says break up too big to fail institutions 2010, and had proposed an amendment on this issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIO04zYem5o

You need to do better than youtube videos

But that is all there is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Barney Frank has done more to reform banking than Bernie has or ever well. Bernie has a completely simplistic understanding of the industry that misses entirely the real issues.

-- a government banking attorney

Pp adding that Gary Gensler, Hillary's banking guy, was an activist regulator at the CfTC post crisis and a super smart guy.

Gensler is 18 year veteran at Goldman Sachs, key player in getting otc derivatives exempted from regulation via Commodity Futuresodernization Act. Those are the derivatives that blew up everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People like to say break up the banks because it is a simple solution they can understand. It actually is neither possible nor desirable. Better to focus on areas where there are almost no regulation but tons of money like shadow banking and off book assets, much of which is still related to mortgages . People don't like complexity but the financial world is indeed complex. Pretending it isn't just leads to ineffective solutions.

sorry the math for 30 year mortgages has been around for 400 to 500 years.

it is not that complex. it hasn't changed that much.

any company could do it except regular companies can't borrow at the rates Fannie and Freddie can because of the gov guarantees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People like to say break up the banks because it is a simple solution they can understand. It actually is neither possible nor desirable. Better to focus on areas where there are almost no regulation but tons of money like shadow banking and off book assets, much of which is still related to mortgages . People don't like complexity but the financial world is indeed complex. Pretending it isn't just leads to ineffective solutions.

sorry the math for 30 year mortgages has been around for 400 to 500 years.

it is not that complex. it hasn't changed that much.

any company could do it except regular companies can't borrow at the rates Fannie and Freddie can because of the gov guarantees.

We've had 30-year mortgages for 500 years? Wut?
WTF does that have to do with the OP anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People like to say break up the banks because it is a simple solution they can understand. It actually is neither possible nor desirable. Better to focus on areas where there are almost no regulation but tons of money like shadow banking and off book assets, much of which is still related to mortgages . People don't like complexity but the financial world is indeed complex. Pretending it isn't just leads to ineffective solutions.

sorry the math for 30 year mortgages has been around for 400 to 500 years.

it is not that complex. it hasn't changed that much.

any company could do it except regular companies can't borrow at the rates Fannie and Freddie can because of the gov guarantees.

Repeating the same simplistic solution over and over doesn't make it any more,appropriate, sorry. Banks do a lot more than offer mortgages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Barney Frank has done more to reform banking than Bernie has or ever well. Bernie has a completely simplistic understanding of the industry that misses entirely the real issues.

-- a government banking attorney

Pp adding that Gary Gensler, Hillary's banking guy, was an activist regulator at the CfTC post crisis and a super smart guy.

Gensler is 18 year veteran at Goldman Sachs, key player in getti ng otc derivatives exempted from regulation via Commodity Futuresodernization Act. Those are the derivatives that blew up everything.

Have you even taken a second to review his regulatory career? Clearly not. It's like dealing with cavemen, "bankers bad" end of thought process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People like to say break up the banks because it is a simple solution they can understand. It actually is neither possible nor desirable. Better to focus on areas where there are almost no regulation but tons of money like shadow banking and off book assets, much of which is still related to mortgages . People don't like complexity but the financial world is indeed complex. Pretending it isn't just leads to ineffective solutions.

sorry the math for 30 year mortgages has been around for 400 to 500 years.

it is not that complex. it hasn't changed that much.

any company could do it except regular companies can't borrow at the rates Fannie and Freddie can because of the gov guarantees.

Repeating the same simplistic solution over and over doesn't make it any more,appropriate, sorry. Banks do a lot more than offer mortgages.

every special interest screams and whines that change can't be done.

you are a great example for why we need to just get rid of existing politicians. It is really not that hard. Start with Mel Watts that wanted to bloat and increase the management scabs at Fannie and Freddie.

old news and finally rejected but good example of what goes on.

Over the objections of the Obama administration and key lawmakers, the CEOs of bailed-out housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are getting massive pay raises, courtesy of the regulator appointed by President Obama himself. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Mel Watt defended his decision to approve the pay hikes, which will raise the Fannie and Freddie CEOs’ pay from $600,000 to $4 million, as vital to “promote CEO retention, allow reliable succession planning and ensure the continuity, efficiency and stability” now that both companies have returned to financial health.

don't worry neither has left. wasn't that important for retention after all.