Jump to content

Talk:Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Why is there such a large list? According to WP:EL, firstly "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Federal Home Financing Agency (successor to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight) --> the links on the first page in regard to the event don't work. At any rate, what are there "Official websites" for? This is not about any of those organization. They must have their own wikipedia page. Even this "http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/08takeover.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all" doesn't link to a unique resource beyond the scope of the article were a featured article. It merely states what could quite easily be cited within the article itself. The second link seems relevant in this early stage as news progresses (though in due course it should be removed)

Perhaps a website dealing with the directive or the details of the takeover. Some legal document is appropirate here. Lihaas (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I intentionally put the links there pending integration into the text of the article via footnotes. This is good practice for a fast moving topic such as this. The links are active placeholders for readers and editors looking for more background not reflected in the article. Please do not delete these, until they show up as footnotes to appropriate text in the article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another "reaction" to the federal seizure might be widespread disdain at the taxpayers being on the hook for all of these billions of dollars? I'm sure it won't be hard to find a reliable source for this reaction. As it is, the page makes it sound like everybody is all hunky-dory about this, when the implications of this deal are far-reaching and not necessarily positive. MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a new section on the national debt implications. I believe the point has been made in a neutral manner. Deet (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other important liability holders are foreign central banks who have been investing heavily in Fannie and Freddie, e.g. the Chinese sentral Bank with about US$400 billion and even the Russian central Bank with US$100 billion. This is discussed in the Asia Times Online article which I have put in the external links section. This is also something that we should integrate into the article. __meco (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background section

[edit]

This is completely lacking and is needed for readers unfamiliar with the subprime mortgage crisis and the housing bubble and the fiscal biographies of Fannie, Freddie and all the GSE instruments. This section would include mention of the 2008 GSE support plan. __meco (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THe GSE support plan text has been brought into this article, and it has been converted into a redirect. The topic has been bypassed by recent events. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical

[edit]

this article is too techinal simplyify it for common man.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousaf465 (talk • contribs) 13:59, September 9, 2008

I agree. I have problems understanding much of the technical-economics jargong here. I suppose the problem here, as it is in computer science and other technical disciplines, is that the people who really understand all of this aren't used to communicating this information to non-technical "lay" people. Nevertheless, that is what we must attempt to do here, at least in summaries. __meco (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, one problem I had was: what is a CDS spread? The article says "The 5-year credit default swap spread for U.S. treasuries had risen to 18 basis points". But what is this a spread over? Neither here or in the CDS article is spread defined. --Quentin Durward (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the source cited in the text may give you some insight.
 • Kopecki, Dawn (2008-09-11). "U.S. Considers Bringing Fannie, Freddie on to Budget". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2008-09-11.
This blog may also give you some background:
 • Newman, Rich (December 9, 2007). A Beginner’s Guide To Credit Default Swaps.
And some more fishig around should give you enough understanding to improve the articles here on wikipedia.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete footnotes please

[edit]

The article in the last day has accumlated 10+ blind or incomplete citations. It is good form to indicate fully the sourcing. It is useful and important as a quality measure and demonstration that the sources are reliable to state:

Author(s), Date, Date accessed if online, the Journal or Source name, the Title of the Article or web page.

Best form is to use the citation template which is an aid to get the information into the footnote. And it's useful to name the citation in a uniform manner. Since these names can get lost, it's best to have them relate to the content, so if necessary, they can be re-found by searching. Here I suggest the form of the name:

'Journal Name-Author-DateYYYY-MM-DD'

Here is the most useful citation template {{cite news}}, put in a form that you can copy and paste, embedded in reference tags and ready to use:

<ref name='+++'> {{cite news | first = | last = | coauthors = | title = | date = YYYY-MM-DD | url = | work = | pages = | publisher = | accessdate = YYYY-MM-DD }} </ref>

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Federal takeover?"

[edit]

The name of this article should be "Natioanlization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterus (talk • contribs) 17:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is not precisely or even imprecisely what happened. The non-court conservatorship is a regulatory action authorized by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 to keep nearlyinsolvent GSEs out of bankruptcy.
      The corporation continues, the shareholders continue to own their shares, no shares of stock were extinguished, the title to a previously existing asset was not extinguished or transferred to the government or its agency.
      The conservatorship is a step away from bankruptcy, for nearly insolvent corporations that are unable to obtain equity capital from the capital markets. A large part of the statutory capital reserves of both organizations ares the illiquid "tax loss carryforwards" which have no value when the corporation needs actual cash today to meet its obligations. The insolvency of Freddie Mac, is based on its failure to obtain, after manifestly energetic and repeated efforts to get something like 5 billion dollars in additional equity from the markets in the last year plus. The failure of Freddie Mac immediately puts Fannie Mae in the same bind, as the markets would not continue to fund Fannie's past and anticipated losses via equity infusions subject to extinguishment via insolvency and bankruptcy that the Freddie Mac corporation would quite publicly go through.
      The Federal Government is an equity source of the last resort in this case, stepping in before actual insolvency arises, and providing capital where no one else would.
      You would not be arguing that all bankrupt corporations have been nationalized; the financial support committed (and not actually undertaken as of this date) is the selling of new shares to the Treasury in exchange for additional senior preferred stock. The claim that there is a nationalization, or non-nationalization is an interpretation and reaction to the detailed actions undertaken. When a nationalization occurs, the assets become titled in the name of the government. No such titling has occured, as of this date.
      The various reacions indicating that the action is metaphorically a nationalization are appropriate for a section detailing the particular issues involved, be they a "reactions" section, or about "national debt" or similar. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New bail-out

[edit]

Anyone know if there is an article started on the new $500 billion bail-out announced on Sep 19 (not directly related to freddie/fannie)? Deet (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Previous Attempts for GSE Reform

[edit]

I dispute the neutrality of this section. This section deliberately leaves out information that makes it appear as though it was the fault of Congressional Democrats who were at fault for this problem. Specifically, citation number 12, a quote by prominent Democrat Barney Frank. I read the entire New York Times article and that quote is the only mention of Frank, the focus of that article was on the new regulations proposed, and basically bureaucrats who supported it. Citation 13 leads to a website which at one point had a summary of the bill that was proposed; however, as stated on the website, that section was removed after that session of Congress came to an end. Therefore it can no longer be used to verify, for instance, who ACTUALLY voted yes or no to the bill. At the time (2003), Republicans had control of Congress, and therefore this Bill must have been defeated in a bipartisan manner. This section makes it appear as though it was the Democrats acting alone. Particularly, the last sentence of the first paragraph appears to be solely the opinion of the author, and nowhere in the citations above does it state that those proposed regulations would have prevented the current crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.196.2 (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above complaint about the neutrality of the article. The attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie were not ONLY led by Republicans and is deliberately misleading. I too am filing a dispute as to the NEUTRALITY of this section, citing the same citations as the above author. Furthermore, the section titled "ATTEMPTS AT GSE REFORM" are arguably INAPPLICABLE to this situation since the bills cited involved GSE's in general and not specifically Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac. I urge the community to investigate the issue to find a more complete history of reform concerning BOTH Freddie and Fannie as well as GSE's in general. I have recently updated the pertinent section to include the distribution of Republican and Democratic members of the committee as well as a link to opensecrets.org containing what level of campaign contributions each member received and form which sector. I find that this has restored to some degree a balance to the originally-skewed portrayal of the 2003 bill

For example, there is no mention of the temporary lift of the "up-tick rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptick_rule) that occurred prior to F&F's collapse, nor is there a mention of what I was looking for originally, which is whether or not it is truthful that Clinton and the Democrats wanted "everyone to get a house." I am not sure whether this claim is true and I was hoping that this article would contain a variety of suspected causes of the crisis, whether it be the Democrats, Republicans or bi-partisan.Drgrumbles (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph

[edit]

Aside from the first sentence, the first paragraph says nothing about the Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I vote we either move it elsewhere in the article or delete it outright. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with the changes. Please discuss before reverting. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Attempts for GSE Reform

[edit]

This section is clearly a partisan (that is, a pro-right) re-writing of the history of GSE reform. This is a very contentious issue -- we should ensure that it doesn't get hijacked by one side or the other. E.g. although Bush said he wanted strengthened oversight of Fannie and Freddie in 2003 -- a desire that was echoed by congressional Republicans, as indicated in the New York Times piece -- the only Senate bill that ever materialized was by Democratic Senator John Corzine (the bill in question: S. 1656). Congressman Ed Royce, Republican of California, introduced a similar bill earlier in the year. Neither the House nor Senate bills were reported out of their GOP-controlled committees. Finally, the 2005 Senate bill was not introduced by John McCain, but co-sponsored by him; the bill's other sponsors were Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hegel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.120.125 (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section does look partisan. Needs rewriting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.187.238 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krugman

[edit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14krugman.html Relevant. Brusegadi (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts for GSE reform, again

[edit]

I tagged this section as POV. It starts in the first sentence: "The GSE business model has outperformed any other real estate business throughout its existence, which many critics ignore." It continues, adopting a persuasive tone and suggesting that the reader do something: "Or take a look at the FHFA study..." And then there's this: "According to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative, deregulation lobbyist supporting, Koch brother funded think-tank makes some assertion based on data which has been debunked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC)." Thoughts? --Joel7687 (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of citations to widely cited academic article by MrOllie based on Off-wiki personal attack; see wikipedia's page on reliable sources re: Mortgage Securitization

[edit]

I wrote the following on MrOllie's talk page following his deletion of citations to a particular academic author. Mr. Ollie did not respond on substance but rather responded with ad hominem attacks. Please discuss so that we can reach consensus.

Dear MrOllie,

You recently reverted edits to articles about mortgage securitization, the GSEs, and the subprime mortgage crisis. I believe these revisions reduced the substantive quality of the wikipedia articles and the edits should be restored. My explanation is below. I look forward to working with you amicably to reach consensus. I believe that our goal should be to improve the article and cite to high quality, relevant sources whenever possible.

The edits you reverted included substantive improvements to the articles and cited an award-winning (see also here), widely-cited, widely-read academic journal article by a tenured professor at a leading research university with relevant expertise.

According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources:

″Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. . . . Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. . . . One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.″

Thus, the source cited is among the most reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. You reverted it while suggesting that it might be reference-spamming, but given the relevance of the academic article to the wikipedia article, and the high quality of the academic article--demonstrated by its placement, its citations, its readership, its awards and the institutional affiliation and status of its author--it is not a form of spam but rather a legitimate effort to improve the article.

Please note that news articles in journals with an ideological valence, think tank reports and other materials are considered less reliable sources than academic research. See Biased or Opinionated Sources Many of the other sources in the article are editorials and think tank reports, not academic articles, and the inclusion of more high quality and up-to-date academic articles would therefore improve the article.

Many of the think tank reports cited in the article are written by organizations that receive financial sponsorship from private lenders and therefore have an interest in portraying the financial crisis as having been caused by government policies rather than by private financial institutions. One of the few academic reports cited is years out of date, claims to provide a "comprehensive" bibliography of articles, but was published in 2012. Much has been written in the ensuing 7 years--the article is no longer a comprehensive review, if it ever was. And indeed, the author claiming otherwise has a think-tank affiliation.

In addition, self-published material is generally considered an unreliable source, except when published by well-published academic experts. Per Wikipedia policy, self-published material:

″are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.″"

You cited to self-published blog by a self-employed blogger / part time document reviewer which contains an off-wikipedia criticism of a scholar with whom he disagrees about the benefits of legal education.

It may be helpful to understand the context of this post. The blogger apparently posted this criticism as a form of revenge for having been made to appear foolish for making substantive mistakes about legal education and student loans[1][2] --subjects about which the blogger purports to be an expert--even in a publication to which he has contributed.[3]

Citing to the post you cited violates wikipedia policies including Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and [[1]]. Indeed, the author of the post you cited acknowledged "that this post might be construed as an “off-wiki attack” ... that Wikipedians may perceive as harmful to their community."

Edits are supposed to be evaluated on substance based on established wikipedia policies about reliable sources, not based on snap decisions based on [[2]]

I recognize that my edits only added one source and that it would be better to include multiple sources. If you would like to add additional high quality academic sources rather than deleting the few high quality citations that are in the wikipedia article, I would encourage you to do so. I have reviewed Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies and I am in compliance.

Mbs6446 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Repetitive (and avoidable) mistakes". Brian Leiter's Law School Reports. July 28, 2013.
  2. ^ "Simkovic & McIntyre's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree"..." Brian Leiter's Law School Reports. Simkovic & McIntyre's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree"... {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ ""Million Dollar Degree" Authors Answer Harper, Leichter". The American Lawyer. August 30, 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac&oldid=1207197247"