OT: A man of Honor at Freedie Mac?

He was assigned to the "Cleanup Crew". That worries me. I am saddened that his Daughter lost her father.

Steve

They just said, on Fox, that Kellermann had been with Freddie MAC for _16_years_!

Sounds like his personal ass was about to be caught in the proverbial crack.

...Jim Thompson

The report explicitly said that he wasn't even suspected of involvment in any irregularities. Despite Jim's vile insinuations, it does sound more like someone overwhelmed by an impossible job. Another incidental victim of James Arthur's blameless bankers.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Maybe. The GSEs knew they were buying bad loans, and they did it anyway.[1]

And both of the Government-Sponsored Enterprises had already committed massive, criminal accounting frauds, so, that's the sort of people who were in charge. Good chance this guy was involved, if not outright responsible.

Sort of a cesspool, really. Pretty much what you'd expect from a government-directed pseudo-private outfit, staffed by Clintonites, whose mission was market-meddling.

And their patrons in Congress protected them.

But now Congress' blame game is in full swing. So maybe this guy saw Obama's pitchforks on the horizon.

Cheers, James Arthur ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"...Fannie began buying huge numbers of riskier loans.

In one meeting, according to two people present, Mr. Mudd told employees to ?get aggressive on risk-taking, or get out of the company.?"

"?Everybody understood that we were now buying loans that we would have previously rejected, and that the models were telling us that we were charging way too little,? said a former senior Fannie executive. ?But our mandate was to stay relevant and to serve low-income borrowers. So that?s what we did.?"

..

=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

y.[1]

Your reference says that they knew that they were buying riskier loans, which are not per se bad loans.

In fact, since the GSE's manadate was to buy loans in bulk, they always knew that some of the loans that they bought were going to go bad, and they fgured out that risks and allowed for it in their cost structure.

What they didn't know - and weren't equipped to find out - was that the banks who were making the loans to individual clients had decided to become criminally negligent in assessing their clients, and had taken to making "ninja" loans (no income, no job) so that the proportion of bad loans had dramatically increased.

According to your reference, this had happened at Freddie but not at Fannie - they may have been some fraud at Fannie befor 2004, but while the chief executives felt obliged to resign, they weren't prosecuted, which doesn't fit with your claim of massive criminal fraud.

Who had been in charge and had been forced to resign. You've not made a case against the more recent executives.=A0

Seems unlikely.

Or so you like to think, granting your rather rigid preconceptions.

As seen from your absurdly pro-market point of view.

Seems more likely to have been a nervous breakdown brought on by overwork.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" skrev i meddelelsen news: snipped-for-privacy@example.net...

Maybe he had "help" - got offed for thinking of going into witness protection or something?

And you have never heard of "the person who knew too much"? ,