Comments 1 - 4 of 4 Search these comments
Are these the same regulators who were literally in bed with the people they were regulating?
Are these the same regulators who were literally in bed with the people they were regulating?
There is no bubble...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE
Regulations ? No need for regulations....
Democrats " We need to regulate the regulators".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQXbT5ZMYaY
yes... in bed.. as in Franks boinking or getting boinked by his boyfriend...
.
.
.
Still, Fannie and Freddie were starting to act recklessly in other ways. As Jeff Madrick and Frank Portnoy detail in the New York Review of Books, Fannie Mae “aggressively minimized federal regulation of its activities and it fought off attempts to tax its profits, partly through extravagant favors to influential lawmakers.†Frank was one of those favored lawmakers — between 1989 and 2008 he received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie. Frank even helped get his then-boyfriend a job at Fannie Mae.
Could you imagine our bill of rights had they been written using boardroom buzzword bingo lingo in the verbiage?
1. It is what it is.
2. You have a right to have skin the game.
3. At the end of the day you'll need all the bells and whistles
4. You must be on the same page by COB
5. you must give heads up, when you deal that up.
Not only 5 years later that rule is still not implemented, but now they are giving up any remaining pretense of willingness to regulate MBS, or anything else financial for that matter.
From WSJ
The watchdogs, which include the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., want to loosen a proposed requirement that banks retain a portion of the mortgage securities they sell to investors, according to people familiar with the situation.
...would be a major U-turn for the regulators charged with fleshing out the Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law passed three years ago.
#housing