Who killed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Andrew Ross Sorkin today says it was Hank Paulson in the Treasury with the bazooka.
Sorkin argues that Fannie and Freddie were essentially prevented from raising new capital once Paulson was given authority to intervene with government cash. The power of the Treasury coupled with an uncertainty about how that power would be used frightened off potential investors, Sorkin argues.
Counter-factual guessing games is fun but even Sorkin doesn’t come out and explicitly say that if Paulson hadn’t received the authority to rescue the companies Fannie and Freddie would have been able to raise enough money to stay afloat. He simply says the authority made certain they couldn’t.
— Advertisement —
Comments (22)
Leave a comment
You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.
- Use the Bloomberg command
NH BLG_DEALBREAKER <GO>
to access Dealbreaker
Too long, didn’t read.
LEH ouch!
sham wow!
Carney makes a good point in the last paragraph. So the question goes back to whether the authority granted was necessary or not.
Holy f LEH just fell off a cliff
# 1 you rule you david spade sounding lil’ shit.
apparently there’s some kind of “uncertainty” around leh. dick got dicked!
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080909/lehman_brothers_mover.html?.v=1
what the heck is going on there. Story please DB
is it wrong to feel bad for Lehman?
Message to Bess:
You demean yourself and impugn whatever professional credentials you may have with that vitriolic attack on the President. First, you should be very leary of passing on the NY Times version of anything, as their credibility is somewhere beneath MSNBC. Secondly, if you consider the structure of the executive branch of the government, you will realize by necessity, the SecTreas would be the lead guy. That is, after all, why we have Treasury Secretaries.
# 1 you rule you david spade sounding lil’ shit.
@10– you impugn whatever professional credentials you have by leaving that comment on the wrong post.
@9
Considering that a lot of good people, possibly your friends and mine, are getting Cayned, laid off and shafted in the shitter (for lack of a better term) I would say no it is not wrong to feel bad.
@12
no comment space under the post, but holy shit, did she catch her boyfriend in bed with the housekeeper?
Bueller any guesses/intelligence on LEH.
Is this the one that goes down without a bailout. And what are the consequences?
beentheredonethat
Do as favor and stay THERE.
Now, lets talk LEH Carney.
Seems like the Koreans aren’t that dumb after all…
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4717709.ece
@beentheredonethat– it’s laughable that you think someone– especially a dem– would’ve had to been unjustly maligned to make a comment on the less than stellar skills of President Bush.
LEH-
they guys who provided capital at 26 dollars a share just a few short weeks ago are puking it out is my guess…..they’re probably thinking where is the possible upside here and can’t come up with any…..
I’ll take all bets: NO BAILOUT. Especially since LEH has been on a death watch for weeks now, there is no systemic risk to the system if they don’t open tomorrow. And don’t forget, as a primary dealer, Treasury can close them down.
this has to be a serious (and probably valid) case of earnings jitters.
How many quarters can their stock sustain the earning losses at this level? These analysts keep falling for the big bath line only to be burned in the next quarter
@18
Trying to peg the FRE & FNM mess on Bush is objectionable to anyone dealing in facts. That was a thirty year time bomb that when off due to political cowardice by both parties by leaving the question of guarantees vague.
Paulson will be running Citi as soon as he leaves office Jan 20, 2009. He will need the bazooka.