US taxpayers have to bear few trillions more debts
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
The country is not monitoring the situation and the situation has exists for many years and they just turn a blind eye to it.
Again I say, responisble use of the bank is the wise thing to do. Swiping and wiping your saving is a stupid thing to do and it has nothing to do with the bank but your own stupidity. Almost everybody in the world now uses bank in some form or another. Can u go without using any services provided by the bank. I don't think it is possible.
LOL.. you've forgotten about the Asian Economic Crisis in the 1990s , yes ? Or are you still a young child going to primary school back then ?
-
I dunt know How this GSE-
government-sponsored enterprises--created troubles affecting SG?
Pl read more to find out--US gavaman have to bail out 1.5 trillions
guranteed by Freddie and Fannie,
http://www.aei.org/research/contentID.20040927152122935/default.asp
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121582252066647817.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
-
In 2006,nobody heard of sup-prime.
But these gentlemen,former US gavaman officials,
alreday sounded the warnings:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24007,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
$1.5 Trillion of Debt 
function printThis() { if (navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().indexOf('firefox') > -1) { popupBar('/include/pub_print.asp?pubID=24007' + "&url=" + self.location, 700, 500); } else { popupBar('/include/pub_print.asp?pubID=24007', 700, 500); } } function emailThis() { popup('/include/pub_email.asp?pubID=24007', 500, 450); } By Peter J. Wallison Posted: Tuesday, March 7, 2006 ARTICLES Wall Street Journal Publication Date: March 7, 2006 Fannie and Freddie are not ordinary companies. They have almost $1.5 trillion of debt outstanding, which they borrowed to buy and carry portfolios of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities; these portfolios expose both companies to enormous interest-rate and prepayment risk.
To hedge this risk, Fannie and Freddie are parties to derivatives transactions with notional values in the trillions, in which the counterparties are some of the largest financial institutions; any failure of Fannie or Freddie to meet its obligations would expose these institutions to substantial losses. Fannie and Freddie debt is also held widely by banks and other financial institutions, in some cases accounting for more than 100% of their capital; a decline in the value of that debt would seriously weaken these organizations and reduce their capacity to lend.
-
http://www.aei.org/research/contentID.20040927152122935/default.asp
read few then u will better prepared.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.12235/pub_detail.asp
The Fundamental Problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a public mission for which they enjoy an implicit subsidy from the federal government, yet their corporate structure obligates them to maximize profits for their shareholders. That dual role creates a fundamental conflict of interest, one with worrisome consequences for taxpayers as well as the future of our competitive private financial markets.
The Federal National Mortgage Association (now known as Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) are two government-chartered and government-sponsored corporations. Both have been assigned the statutory mission of enhancing liquidity in the middle-class residential mortgage markets by buying and selling residential mortgages.
Fannie and Freddie were originally government agencies but were "privatized" when they were permitted to sell shares to the public. Today, both companies are among the largest and most profitable financial institutions in the world, with their securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
Their apparent success, however, obscures an inherent contradiction. They are shareholder-owned companies, with managers who have a fiduciary obligation to maximize profits, but they are also government-chartered and empowered agencies with a public mission. It should be obvious that they cannot achieve both objectives. If they maximize profits, they will fail to perform their government mission to their full potential. If they perform their government mission fully, they will fail to maximize profits.
In 1996, the Congressional Budget Office found that these two companies had received subsidies in 1995 of approximately $6.5 billion but that only about two-thirds of that subsidy was actually delivered to the mortgage markets. The remainder was retained for the benefit of the companies’ shareholders and management teams.
That is exactly what one would expect from this hybrid form. If Fannie and Freddie were fully performing their government mission, their entire subsidy would have gone to the mortgage markets. The fact that they retained a portion for themselves reflects their obligation to their shareholders and the incentives of their executives to increase their own compensation.
This conflict of interest has direct practical consequences. Since 1992, Fannie and Freddie have had an obligation to assist in financing affordable and low-income housing. Obviously, doing so would be costly and would thus reduce their profitability. Studies now show that their performance in financing low-income housing—especially in minority areas—is far worse than that of ordinary banks. In other words, despite the fact that Fannie and Freddie receive subsidies to perform a government mission—in this case support of low-income housing—their need for and incentives to retain a high level of profit-ability is an obstacle to their performance.
By Peter J. Wallison Posted: Friday, December 1, 2000 ON THE ISSUES AEI Online (Washington) Publication Date: December 1, 2000 -
Peter J. Wallison
http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.58,filter.all/scholar.asp
He was also general counsel of the Depository Institutions Deregulation Committee and later served as White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan.
Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, 1986-1987
-General Counsel of the U.S. Treasury Department, 1981-1985
-Partner, Roger & Wells, 1977-1981
-Special assistant to Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller and counsel during his Vice Presidency, 1972-1976 -
"Public policy cannot be expected to prevent these foreclosures," Paulson said. "Due to the lax credit and underwriting standards of the past years, some people took out mortgages they can't possibly afford and they will lose their homes. There is little public policymakers can, or should, do to compensate for untenable financial decisions."
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/housing-help-way-may-too/story.aspx?guid={00A37FC3-F753-4707-9E32-3113587C76F1}
-
LOL.. you've forgotten about the Asian Economic Crisis in the 1990s , yes ? Or are you still a young child going to primary school back then ?
U r right tat there is the asian economic crisis in the 1990's, and it affect all the countries in the region even the democratic countries. So just becoming democratic can solve the world's problem ? Hardly
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
U r right tat there is the asian economic crisis in the 1990's, and it affect all the countries in the region even the democratic countries. So just becoming democratic can solve the world's problem ? Hardly
Oh yoh... so are you saying a non- democracy can solve the world problem ?
By turning every country into a communist or autocratic state.. the world problems will be solved ???????
IS that what you truly believe in ?????????
-
OMG.
In 2000,this wise man alreday predicted that in 2003,
the two giants will bear US$3 T,half of US mortgages.
In 2008,the figure is US$ 5Trillion,half of existing US Federal debts!!
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.17635/pub_detail.asp
By the end of 1998, they had assumed mortgage risks of almost $1.8 trillion and, if growth forecasts are accurate, will bear $3 trillion of mortgage risk by 2003. At that point, they will be at risk either as holders or as guarantors for almost half of all residential mortgages in the United States. Because they have the implicit backing of the United States government, this means that taxpayers will be standing behind $3 trillion of risk that could and should have been lodged in the private sector alone.
-
Oh yoh... so are you saying a non- democracy can solve the world problem ?
By turning every country into a communist or autocratic state.. the world problems will be solved ???????
IS that what you truly believe in ?????????
Well, nope. I just feel tat the current system, which china and russia adopted to a certain extent, is not as bad as some people think. Democracy is overrated
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
OMG.
In 2000,this wise man alreday predicted that in 2003,
the two giants will bear US$3 T,half of US mortgages.
In 2008,the figure is US$ 5Trillion,half of existing US Federal debts!!
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.17635/pub_detail.asp
Mortgage = housing loans ..yes ?
If less mortgage = less people owns home , yes ?
So which one you want ?
Less mortgage.. more people without home ownership ?
Or more mortgage.. with more people having a home they can own ?
It is unfortunate.. the economy took a down turn coupled with the oil crisis.
When the people affected by this subprime problem took up the loans... they were expecting the economy to continue a steady growth.
So I don know why you are making a mountain out of a mole hill ? Are you saying you can predict the future ?
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Well, nope. I just feel tat the current system, which china and russia adopted to a certain extent, is not as bad as some people think. Democracy is overrated
Have you been to China and/or Russia ?
If China and Russia is so great... why are the people leaving ?
Russian girls are willing to marry a foreign stranger just to get out of their country.
And I've been to China, there's a lot of restrictions on the lives of the Chinese , imposed by the authorities.
One year ago.. I chatted with a Chinese who left China about 2-3 years ago. She told me that couples who wants to get married needs permission from their superior. And migrants workers needs permit to work in another province.
Is this the kind of life you want ? I know I don't.
-
it is easy to take the conventional numbers and said the US are behind or loosing its abilities to leads. And its debt, War, healthcare bla bla bla But one notion needs to observe In the US or America continent are blessed with resource rich nations. (Remember one can drive from Alaska to the tip of south america.)
If today for some natural global event that stop transocean Trades. Who would be able to substain its growth? China or the Americans?
Needless to compare SG.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Well, nope. I just feel tat the current system, which china and russia adopted to a certain extent, is not as bad as some people think. Democracy is overrated
their current system is just to satisfied the majority of the population basic.people move to the US is not about Democracy anymore but a life style choice.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/housing-help-way-may-too/story.aspx?guid={00A37FC3-F753-4707-9E32-3113587C76F1}
Despite all the warnings written on the wall, we have a brilliant MM who believe that it is in Singapore's long term interest to buy into banks burdened with sub-prime problems.GIC has bought into UBS with investment of US$11 Billion and saw its value knocked off by 40% within less then 6 months, as more salt was added into a self-inflcted wound when UBS subsequently announced a further unrevealed debt of another US$19 Billion.
UBS called for an additional Rights Issue - which UBS is prepared to offer a special lower price for investors who saw their recent investment depreciated.
However, if Singapore's GIC do not commit more money to take up more shares with this Rights Issue, it will see the existing shares being diluted in size, besides having lost 40% from the initial purchase value.
This is the brilliance in the sub-prime that Singapore Government has got Singapore tangled up with.
Besides GIC being involved in UBS with its sub-prime problems, Singapore's Temasek has also bought for itself a stake of US$6.88 Billion into Citibank after it had written off US$18.1 Billion for subprime losses.
Besides Citibank, Temasek had also injected US$6.2 Billion into Merrill Lynch
With all three financial institutions linked to the US Sub-prime fiasco, and with the way that the balance sheets of these financial institutions leaving out several important bad loans that are common amongst the three - is GIC and Temasek taking a bigger bite of a poison apple then can be digested ?
Should the noisylion gloat over the US problems thinking that Singapore will stay afloat amidst the present problems ?
Reference:
-
To be frank, Atobe has a point tat singapore gov do invest a lot on such banks and it is now hard to see if it is a smart choice or not. Tentatively, it is still cloudy and we r concluding too early to see if the loss is permanent. Since tis is supposed to be a long term investment, lets give it another 2 years to see how things go in the long run.
Have you been to China and/or Russia ?
If China and Russia is so great... why are the people leaving ?
Russian girls are willing to marry a foreign stranger just to get out of their country.
Tat is true, however u got to see the rate of improvement instead of the current state. Russia and china have improved tremendously in recent years and it seems growth is gonna continue. Things changes fast and in a couple of years, situation will change. Just lok at china, 10 years ago everybody think china r like zhang yimou show where everybody is poor and live in countryside. Now shanghai and many cities r better than singapore. Give it another 10 years and it may even be as strong as US.
-
More importantly, why did the Singapore government buy into the banking sector which is about to collapse.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
To be frank, Atobe has a point tat singapore gov do invest a lot on such banks and it is now hard to see if it is a smart choice or not. Tentatively, it is still cloudy and we r concluding too early to see if the loss is permanent. Since tis is supposed to be a long term investment, lets give it another 2 years to see how things go in the long run.
Tat is true, however u got to see the rate of improvement instead of the current state. Russia and china have improved tremendously in recent years and it seems growth is gonna continue. Things changes fast and in a couple of years, situation will change. Just lok at china, 10 years ago everybody think china r like zhang yimou show where everybody is poor and live in countryside. Now shanghai and many cities r better than singapore. Give it another 10 years and it may even be as strong as US.
It was sheer stupidity. There is no need to try to make it look better than it is. The money invested is already lost (in that you cannot use it to buy something else, or more of what you bought). Whether you make back the losses, is another issue altogether.
Despots all over the world think that they are clever and smart but it is better to let a nation (the private individuals in a country) to make the decisions instead of despots taking all the money and losing it to foreigners.
Edited to add: The money is lost, you cannot use it to buy something, with BETTER potential... like Buffet going round the world at this moment trying to pick up bargains. The stupid depots had already tied up tens of billions in the banks and losing Singaporeans hard-earned money they took by force to foreigners.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
More importantly, why did the Singapore government buy into the banking sector which is about to collapse.
Because they are scam artists and good only at taking people's money.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
To be frank, Atobe has a point tat singapore gov do invest a lot on such banks and it is now hard to see if it is a smart choice or not. Tentatively, it is still cloudy and we r concluding too early to see if the loss is permanent. Since tis is supposed to be a long term investment, lets give it another 2 years to see how things go in the long run.
Tat is true, however u got to see the rate of improvement instead of the current state. Russia and china have improved tremendously in recent years and it seems growth is gonna continue. Things changes fast and in a couple of years, situation will change. Just lok at china, 10 years ago everybody think china r like zhang yimou show where everybody is poor and live in countryside. Now shanghai and many cities r better than singapore. Give it another 10 years and it may even be as strong as US.
"Give it another 10 years and it may even be as strong as US."This may only be possible, provided US and other first world countries stop progressing.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
"Give it another 10 years and it may even be as strong as US."This may only be possible, provided US and other first world countries stop progressing.
Why are you so bullish about America? Is it because you are studying there at the moment?
Didnt you know that America economy is stalling and heavily in debt, while China is still charging ahead with their economic growth?
-
Originally posted by £ Ỉ €Ú°:
Why are you so bullish about America? Is it because you are studying there at the moment?
Didnt you know that America economy is stalling and heavily in debt, while China is still charging ahead with their economic growth?
eeee hhheeee heee heee.. ohh...hoo hooo hooo... you're such a frog in the well.
I told you already.. you don't believe me.. you come and see it yourself.
But you got the marnee to buy yourself a air ticket to come here anot ? If you are too poor.. then please... you can try swimming... I wait for you here... hahahahah....hohohohoho....
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
eeee hhheeee heee heee.. ohh...hoo hooo hooo... you're such a frog in the well.
I told you already.. you don't believe me.. you come and see it yourself.
But you got the marnee to buy yourself a air ticket to come here anot ? If you are too poor.. then please... you can try swimming... I wait for you here... hahahahah....hohohohoho....
hheee hooo? Are you studying to become USDA donkey or ass?
-
Please do not call people names. It is not the nicest thing in the world to do, and to be nice to others is to be nice to yourself and eat well. Good day.
-
Originally posted by £ Ỉ €Ú°:
hheee hooo? Are you studying to become USDA donkey or ass?
Yah lor.. so I can communicate with a donky ass like you lah !!! Heee hhoooo...