<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &quot;Fannie: Going Concern, but I am Getting Concerned&quot;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:21:03 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Wriiight</title>
		<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting.html#comment-25434</link>
		<dc:creator>Wriiight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting-concerned/#comment-25434</guid>
		<description>A couple of notes to keep things accurate.  FNM has not received a $100B bailout.  The bailout gave the treasury $100B in warrants against FNM and FRE which they will pay out on only as needed.  Even after this last quarter&#039;s $29B loss, FNM is not quite at the point where it needs to make its first withdrawal against the $100B, but it seems to expect (unless things should improve) to have to do so before the end of the year.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;As far as setting cash aside, much the loss this quarter (except for the large loss from recognizing that they will not get to use their tax deferments) comes from setting more cash aside as their loss expectations increase.  Loan loss reserves do not count as capital, as far as accounting is concerned it is as good as spent.  The two GSEs have quite a bit of reserves socked away, and the accounting gives their estimate of where they will stand after all their assets and liabilities run their course (with the exception of where accounting requires that they give the value as if they had to sell today, ie Mark-to-Market)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A couple of notes to keep things accurate.  FNM has not received a $100B bailout.  The bailout gave the treasury $100B in warrants against FNM and FRE which they will pay out on only as needed.  Even after this last quarter&#8217;s $29B loss, FNM is not quite at the point where it needs to make its first withdrawal against the $100B, but it seems to expect (unless things should improve) to have to do so before the end of the year.</p>
<p>As far as setting cash aside, much the loss this quarter (except for the large loss from recognizing that they will not get to use their tax deferments) comes from setting more cash aside as their loss expectations increase.  Loan loss reserves do not count as capital, as far as accounting is concerned it is as good as spent.  The two GSEs have quite a bit of reserves socked away, and the accounting gives their estimate of where they will stand after all their assets and liabilities run their course (with the exception of where accounting requires that they give the value as if they had to sell today, ie Mark-to-Market)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lord</title>
		<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting.html#comment-25331</link>
		<dc:creator>Lord</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting-concerned/#comment-25331</guid>
		<description>I like issuing treasuries to China and funding them directly as this makes them largely solvent with any spread accruing to the treasury.  Another way to make China pay for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like issuing treasuries to China and funding them directly as this makes them largely solvent with any spread accruing to the treasury.  Another way to make China pay for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting.html#comment-25303</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting-concerned/#comment-25303</guid>
		<description>&quot;There is absolutely no way any Agency MBS will be allowed to fail as the outcome would be disastrous.&quot; Unfortunately, you say this assuming the US govt. has a choice. The currency and/or treasury markets might override the govt. and say &quot;yes, you will let them fail&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;There is absolutely no way any Agency MBS will be allowed to fail as the outcome would be disastrous.&#8221; Unfortunately, you say this assuming the US govt. has a choice. The currency and/or treasury markets might override the govt. and say &#8220;yes, you will let them fail&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: doc holiday</title>
		<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting.html#comment-25291</link>
		<dc:creator>doc holiday</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting-concerned/#comment-25291</guid>
		<description>This chart and many others would be more dramatic and honest if they were triangles, i.e, it would be nice to see the pyramid scheme nature of the last 10 years or more and show the percentage of phantom gross revenues, dilution from insider bonuses, dilution from excess phantom growth and of course the reality of the common share values.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;What you would see, is the con artists at the top of the pyramid with all the money and the rubes at the bottom of the spreading base.  I think we could also add in a little color, like insider pirates flying green and black flags, on the top, with the crying rube lemmings below sinking deeper in the red.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This chart and many others would be more dramatic and honest if they were triangles, i.e, it would be nice to see the pyramid scheme nature of the last 10 years or more and show the percentage of phantom gross revenues, dilution from insider bonuses, dilution from excess phantom growth and of course the reality of the common share values.</p>
<p>What you would see, is the con artists at the top of the pyramid with all the money and the rubes at the bottom of the spreading base.  I think we could also add in a little color, like insider pirates flying green and black flags, on the top, with the crying rube lemmings below sinking deeper in the red.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Raithel</title>
		<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting.html#comment-25288</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Raithel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting-concerned/#comment-25288</guid>
		<description>Anywhere Yves Smith sends me, I look around for what else might be there. Others may have already seen this, but if you have not, take a look:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;http://econompicdata.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-much-of-bailout-money-will-make-it.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anywhere Yves Smith sends me, I look around for what else might be there. Others may have already seen this, but if you have not, take a look:</p>
<p><a href="http://econompicdata.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-much-of-bailout-money-will-make-it.html" rel="nofollow">http://econompicdata.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-much-of-bailout-money-will-make-it.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tompain</title>
		<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting.html#comment-25278</link>
		<dc:creator>tompain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting-concerned/#comment-25278</guid>
		<description>The bulk of this quarter&#039;s losses were from the writedown of a deferred tax asset which probably would not have to be written down if not for the fact that the government is now running the company with no intention of making a profit in the future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The bulk of this quarter&#8217;s losses were from the writedown of a deferred tax asset which probably would not have to be written down if not for the fact that the government is now running the company with no intention of making a profit in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting.html#comment-25274</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting-concerned/#comment-25274</guid>
		<description>above, sorry taken from the G20 statment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>above, sorry taken from the G20 statment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting.html#comment-25273</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting-concerned/#comment-25273</guid>
		<description>Would like your thoughts here Yves if you have time. Do they think every one will eat this story. The rest is even worse if you ask me. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;First things first&lt;br/&gt;Of these, the first is more important. The current crisis  or more accurately the dramatically&lt;br/&gt;altered dynamics that took hold after the inflexion point in mid September&lt;br/&gt; has been addressed with speed and pragmatism.&lt;br/&gt;But the crisis is not over. An extended credit lockup (with its potential for extraordinary&lt;br/&gt;damage) has probably been avoided. TED and related spreads seem to have&lt;br/&gt;moderated. Commercial paper is being rolled over, though not through the conventional&lt;br/&gt;channels (which are still largely closed). The payments system is functioning;&lt;br/&gt;public funds are flowing into the financial system helping to recapitalise banks.&lt;br/&gt;But there is a good deal more to do before we are out of the woods.&lt;br/&gt; Mortgages need to be removed from damaged balance sheets, terms reset and&lt;br/&gt;foreclosures limited.&lt;br/&gt; Collateralised and structured assets, not trading and with uncertain values,&lt;br/&gt;similarly need to be evaluated, purchased, and dismantled.&lt;br/&gt;While the original conception of TARP did not act quickly enough to recapitalise the&lt;br/&gt;system, it remains politically and economically important.&lt;br/&gt; Homeowners need help.&lt;br/&gt;Help for homeowners was part of the bargain; implemented properly it will help prevent&lt;br/&gt;a dramatic downward overshoot in housing prices. And it will begin the process&lt;br/&gt;of removing the transparency fog and therefore uncertainty about value that surrounds&lt;br/&gt;those portions of balance sheets with complex securitised and structured&lt;br/&gt;assets, one of the reasons why private and SWF capital, having been burned once, is still mostly on the side lines.&lt;br/&gt;11</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Would like your thoughts here Yves if you have time. Do they think every one will eat this story. The rest is even worse if you ask me. </p>
<p>First things first<br />Of these, the first is more important. The current crisis  or more accurately the dramatically<br />altered dynamics that took hold after the inflexion point in mid September<br /> has been addressed with speed and pragmatism.<br />But the crisis is not over. An extended credit lockup (with its potential for extraordinary<br />damage) has probably been avoided. TED and related spreads seem to have<br />moderated. Commercial paper is being rolled over, though not through the conventional<br />channels (which are still largely closed). The payments system is functioning;<br />public funds are flowing into the financial system helping to recapitalise banks.<br />But there is a good deal more to do before we are out of the woods.<br /> Mortgages need to be removed from damaged balance sheets, terms reset and<br />foreclosures limited.<br /> Collateralised and structured assets, not trading and with uncertain values,<br />similarly need to be evaluated, purchased, and dismantled.<br />While the original conception of TARP did not act quickly enough to recapitalise the<br />system, it remains politically and economically important.<br /> Homeowners need help.<br />Help for homeowners was part of the bargain; implemented properly it will help prevent<br />a dramatic downward overshoot in housing prices. And it will begin the process<br />of removing the transparency fog and therefore uncertainty about value that surrounds<br />those portions of balance sheets with complex securitised and structured<br />assets, one of the reasons why private and SWF capital, having been burned once, is still mostly on the side lines.<br />11</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting.html#comment-25260</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting-concerned/#comment-25260</guid>
		<description>&quot;Under the Regulatory Reform Act, the Federal Housing Finance Agency MUST place Fannie Mae into receivership if their &lt;i&gt;assets&lt;/i&gt; are less than obligations for a period of 60 days&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Assets? Don&#039;t they have a few trillion in assets? Surely they don&#039;t burn through that amount in 60 days?&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Did you mean net worth, shareholder equity or some such?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Under the Regulatory Reform Act, the Federal Housing Finance Agency MUST place Fannie Mae into receivership if their <i>assets</i> are less than obligations for a period of 60 days&#8221;</p>
<p>Assets? Don&#8217;t they have a few trillion in assets? Surely they don&#8217;t burn through that amount in 60 days?</p>
<p>Did you mean net worth, shareholder equity or some such?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting.html#comment-25256</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/fannie-going-concern-but-i-am-getting-concerned/#comment-25256</guid>
		<description>Take that 100 billion and multipy by 10.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Take that 100 billion and multipy by 10.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
