Yes, that seems very clear. Secondary factors are traditional conservative resentment at Fannie's (fading) mandate to finance cheap mortgage credit to the "high risk" poor, especially the ghetto poor; gleeful Republican exploitation of balance sheet shenanigans by the Clinton-appointed management; and concern about the systemic risk inherent in the great amount of MBS and other Fannie Mae paper held in the private sector, including by employee pension funds. Fannie benefits from the perception that it's "too big to fail" and is backed by an implicit government guarantee which allows it to borrow cheaply to finance its operations. Its competitors are trying to use the scandal to hamstring it, and erode its competitive advantage.
Marv Gandall ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 2:48 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] fannie mae > financial sector. If you're providing cheap mortgages, then providers of > slightly more expensive mortgages are always going to hate you. > > dd > > -----Original Message----- > From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael > Perelman > Sent: 06 October 2004 21:10 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: fannie mae > > > I assume that the hubbub about Fannie Mae has to do with some corporate > interests > that covet its business. I would think that the construction business would > want > credit to be as cheap as possible. > > Does anybody know who is behind this push? > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu >
