The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

FNMA FHLMC Execs Charged With Securities Fraud
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7923
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Vindicarre [ Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:41 pm ]
Post subject:  FNMA FHLMC Execs Charged With Securities Fraud

Sigh, the usual Friday release with the addition of a non-prosecution agreement - sickening.

SEC

Quote:
SEC CHARGES FORMER FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC EXECUTIVES WITH SECURITIES FRAUD



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2011-267

Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans.

...

The SEC's complaint against the former Fannie Mae executives alleges that, when Fannie Mae began reporting its exposure to subprime loans in 2007, it broadly described the loans as those "made to borrowers with weaker credit histories," and then reported — with the knowledge, support, and approval of Mudd, Dallavecchia, and Lund — less than one-tenth of its loans that met that description. Fannie Mae reported that its 2006 year-end Single Family exposure to subprime loans was just 0.2 percent, or approximately $4.8 billion, of its Single Family loan portfolio. Investors were not told that in calculating the Company's reported exposure to subprime loans, Fannie Mae did not include loan products specifically targeted by Fannie Mae towards borrowers with weaker credit histories, including more than $43 billion of Expanded Approval, or "EA" loans.

Fannie Mae's executives also knew and approved of the decision to underreport Fannie Mae's Alt-A loan exposure, the SEC alleged. Fannie Mae disclosed that its March 31, 2007 exposure to Alt-A loans was 11 percent of its portfolio of Single Family loans. In reality, Fannie Mae's Alt-A exposure at that time was approximately 18 percent of its Single Family loan holdings.

The misleading disclosures were made as Fannie Mae's executives were seeking to increase the Company's market share through increased purchases of subprime and Alt-A loans, and gave false comfort to investors about the extent of Fannie Mae's exposure to high-risk loans, the SEC alleged.

In the complaint against the former Freddie Mac executives, the SEC alleged that they and Freddie Mac led investors to believe that the firm used a broad definition of subprime loans and was disclosing all of its Single-Family subprime loan exposure. Syron and Cook reinforced the misleading perception when they each publicly proclaimed that the Single Family business had "basically no subprime exposure." Unbeknown to investors, as of December 31, 2006, Freddie Mac's Single Family business was exposed to approximately $141 billion of loans internally referred to as "subprime" or "subprime like," accounting for 10 percent of the portfolio, and grew to approximately $244 billion, or 14 percent of the portfolio, as of June 30, 2008.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

You cut the most offensive part!

Quote:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac each entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Commission in which each company agreed to accept responsibility for its conduct and not dispute, contest, or contradict the contents of an agreed-upon Statement of Facts without admitting nor denying liability.

"So, uh, yeah, guys. We're not going to say we did anything wrong, or that anything's our fault. But we'll agree to help you construct a "Statement of Facts" that we agree with, so long as you say it can't be used against us in a trial. Because, you know, that would be like the government suing itself, at this point, and nobody needs that kind of hassle, right? But it's okay, because we'll accept responsibility -- so long as that responsibility isn't being publicly vilified (because, hey, we didn't do anything wrong!) or prosecuted."

Author:  Wwen [ Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:10 am ]
Post subject: 

I care less about the execs and more about the government that help encourage and protect the company to begin with.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
You cut the most offensive part!

Vindicarre wrote:
Sigh, the usual Friday release with the addition of a non-prosecution agreement - sickening.

Heh, I figured folks would know what a non-prosecution agreement was. :oops:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
"So, uh, yeah, guys. We're not going to say we did anything wrong, or that anything's our fault. But we'll agree to help you construct a "Statement of Facts" that we agree with, so long as you say it can't be used against us in a trial. Because, you know, that would be like the government suing itself, at this point, and nobody needs that kind of hassle, right? But it's okay, because we'll accept responsibility -- so long as that responsibility isn't being publicly vilified (because, hey, we didn't do anything wrong!) or prosecuted."


I figured it went like this:
"So, guys, people are figuring out the real causes of the housing market collapse. We need someone to blame. We're going to charge you with securities fraud...no, no wait, I know you were only doing what Congress told you to do, and all. The problem is that we need someone to blame, and quick. I'll tell you what, we'll just charge you and not prosecute you, okay? As long as we drop the news on Friday and you don't talk about it, we'll put that in the agreement so you have an excuse, it'll go away quickly. Most people won't even pay attention, and even if they do, who's going to notice that we didn't prosecute? I mean it's the charges that will get reported if the media talks about it at all, and you won't even have to admit you did anything wrong. It's a win win! "

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/