Talk:Government National Mortgage Association

Suspicious sentence

"The arrangement seemingly benefits everyone involved" - this word "seemingly" is quite suspicious. As a matter of fact, I like that one, but perhaps some elaboration on the matter would be useful. --Ruziklan 12:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Flow diagram

This article would be a lot easier to understand if there were some type of flow chart relating the market, ginnie mae, and all the other acronyms. Right now, it's kind of dense and confusing. Joe056 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs Update

Ginnie Mae securities are the only MBS that are guaranteed by the United States government.

Is this true anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.234.171 (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not as True as It Once Was

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been taken over by the government by the "October 7, 2008 conservatorship and the subsequent planned Treasury infusion of capital support the senior liabilities, subordinated indebtedness, and mortgage guarantees of the two firms." The key term here is "support." The idea is for the GSEs to recover and not require government guarantees. This is mentioned in another article on this site. Jlgood4 (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The article is written almost as an advertisement for Ginnie Mae without much substantiation on what the organization does or the downsides of the organization's approach to home loans. Given the current issues with U.S. Government controlled mortgage entities, another look is needed at the positives and negatives of Ginnie Mae

Not True

What is truth? It is not the following sentence in the article, "Today, Ginnie Mae securities are the only mortgage-backed securities that offer the full faith and credit guaranty of the United States government." Who writes this article, a representative of the US Government? This is the problem with lies -- you depend upon them and you get hurt. This sentence needs to BE DELETED.

NPOV edits by user BMDC

I deleted the worst of the POV stuff. It was all added by a single user "BMDC" on April 21st, 2010 in the course of 16 edits, those being the ONLY edits performed by said users. So I will assume it was a HUD or Ginnie Mae employee who wrote from such a POV view. However, the article WAS in lousy shape and the user at least cleaned it up and made it presentable. Safiel (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification: Housing in the United States

A request has been submitted to WikiProject United States for a new article to be created on the topic of Housing in the United States. Please join the discussion or consider contributing to the new article. Best regards, -- M2545 (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)