Fannie and Freddie Weigh writing down mortgage principals. But "experts" say that is a 'Moral Hazard' for the people.

Fannie and Freddie are considering writing down principals of mortgages of people who are underwater or are behind in their mortgages.

Fannie and Freddie are taxpayer owned at this point, when they were given Billions and Billions in 2008 along with all the other Wall Street banks.

Remember that banks have also been 'forgiven' for Billions and the government and banks have lied about the pay backs of the TARP funds.  It was found that the banks were using more "loans" from the taxpayers through the government to pay back the TARP funds.

It seems some "experts" are saying it would be a "Moral Hazard"  to allow people to have their mortgage principal lowered.

Portion from link:

Some experts just don't like the unfair, free-lunch aspect of principal write-downs. For them, forgiving principal outright seems to cross a bright line and raise all manner of fairness and moral hazard concerns.

Anthony Sanders, a professor of real estate finance at George Mason University, says this would be a "major shift in economic policy," and thinks there would be unintended consequences.

"Do we really want to go out on the hairy edge, based on a few anecdotal assumptions that this might work?" Sanders says. "I would argue no."

For Sanders, the risks outweigh the benefits.

So lets get this straight..... the Federal Reserve has printed Trillions in dollars and has given banks 'secret' loans of Trillions, which they did not want to reveal that fact for years, until they had to.  The banks all this time have been using that money to gamble on derivatives and giving themselves Billions in bonuses and have not really paid back the taxpayers of the U.S....... and it would be a "Moral Hazard" to help the people?

This shows what absolute disdain the banks and the "experts" of the world hold for the people of the world.

This shows they in fact have absolutely NO MORALS! 

Speaking of "Morals", Obama yesterday gave 'carte blanche' to the banks and corporations of the U.S. yesterday.  Through his "Jobs Act" he is allowing banks and corporations to out right steal and falsify information about their finances.

Matt Tabbi - who is always on top of all the fraud at Rolling Stones magazine has revealed what Obama's "Job Act" is really about.

Obama is giving Wall Street and start up companies the legal right to lie and falsify all financial information to suck people into investing with them.  But is that a surprise, since he gave Billions to solar companies that went out of business immediately and no one in the government is asking where the money went.

Portion:

The law also rolls back rules designed to prevent bank analysts from talking up a stock just to win business, a practice that was so pervasive in the tech-boom years as to be almost industry standard.

 Even worse, the JOBS Act, incredibly, will allow executives to give "pre-prospectus" presentations to investors using PowerPoint and other tools in which they will not be held liable for misrepresentations. These firms will still be obligated to submit prospectuses before their IPOs, and they'll still be held liable for what's in those. But it'll be up to the investor to check and make sure that the prospectus matches the "pre-presentation."

Will we be hearing about the "Moral Hazards" of corporations and Wall Street being allowed to outright Lie to the investors of stocks?  Will we hear "experts" cry out about this legal stealing from people?

Oh, No we wont!  It is because the people will be stolen from, not the banks.  You only hear out cries from the media broadcasting "experts" when the people are helped.  They are silent when banks and corporations are given free rein to lie, steal and cheat.

This is the "Moral Hazard" of our government and how far down the U.S. has come!  Those in control are committing "Moral Hazard" against the people in every way.  They have enacted laws to take our freedoms away in every form of the Constitution.

I say, let us all take on the "Moral Hazard" of this government and banks/corporations that run it.

Let us all stand up to the "Moral Hazard" of the Bank Fraud that has been happening in Foreclosures!

They don't want to write down any principals!  Fine - Let's Take them to Court!  Let's make them show they have a right to Foreclose on properties!  They have committed Fraud through their loans, yet I have not heard an out cry of "Moral Hazard" from experts regarding throwing people out on the street through fraud!  Gosh why not?  In fact what I have seen is the Attorney Generals of the States, who are suppose to be the leading person making sure all laws are adhered to in each state.... give the banks a free pass with their fraud.

So, we now have a "David and Goliath" situation.  We are David and we have the stone/sword to 'kill' Goliath by proving the Fraud in the courtrooms of the U.S. collectively.

I am going to be concentrating as much as possible on the MERS Foreclosure Fraud once more.  It seems banks have plans to start massive foreclosure proceedings against people, due to the AG agreement now.

They want people to think they can not stand up to the Fraud of banks individually, but that is not true.  In fact everyone can stand up to the banks and their own individual mortgage Fraud!

Yesterday, I published an article from Jesse of USMortgageAuditors.com about MERS and how it began.
He is intent on helping people reveal the fraud in their loans.

Today 4/11/12 - Jesse is conducting a Webinar at 1 Pm est. for those who want to find out more about the FRAUD in mortgages. The link is here to register:  
  

https://www4.gotomeeting.com/register/559767031

Let's all show who has committed the real "Moral Hazard" here in the U.S. and it certainly is not the people who have had Fraud committed against them by the banks, government and corporations of the U.S.

U.S. government trying to Figure a Way out of the Mortgage Market - Getting Rid of Fannie and Freddie - wants the Too Big to Fail Banks to take the Risk

The Wall Street Journal has a story about how the White House and U.S. government is trying to figure out how to get out of the mortgage market and let the "Too big to fail banks" take over Fannie and Freddie - which are government guaranteed/insured backed mortgages.

Is there any wonder why they suddenly would like to get out of the mortgage market?  They no doubt see the writing on the wall with all the fraud now being stood up to by the people and judges in the country.

Judges just a year ago, continued to let the fraud go on in most cases throughout the country.  They refused to acknowledge the fraud of the paperwork and continued to give the rights to foreclose to the banks.  There were a few judges who stood by the law and refused to accept the fraud of the banks, though the banks would argue in court "Judge this is the way it has always been done, you can't rule against it".  (Seriously, that was really some arguments of the banks in courtrooms!)

The judges that ruled by the law, created the wave of media attention, it took many to do so, as the Supreme Court of Kansas was the first to really rule against MERS almost 2 years ago.  The wave of MERS fraud only just came out to full public knowledge a couple of months ago.  Yet, it is still not full public knowledge as the public has not really been informed about what the "paperwork irregularities and robo signing notaries" are really about.

The government is now trying to get out of the mortgages as fast as possible.  They know it is all blowing up.  They want out of the mortgage market due to all the fraud of the banks.  Of course they are not saying so directly.  There is no stopping the judges now having to rule by the law, even those who had not done so previously.  There are enough Supreme Courts of various states who have been ruling against the banks, so there is no ignoring the law for judges anymore.  A lawyer can simply say "But, Judge here is how this Supreme Court ruled, because of this".  Lawyers always use other cases and rulings to defend clients. 

I have to give it to those lawyers who first began the defense of people being foreclosed on.  They had a very hard job in front of them, proving how the banks committed fraud.  They have paved the way for other lawyers to put together their defense of foreclosure.  So I would like to Thank all those lawyers and people who stood up to the fraud from the beginning, I know the road has not been easy.

Back to the original premise of this post.  The Wall Street journal says the government wants out of mortgages, though they don't say the real reason why.  All you have to do, is read between the lines to see the government is looking for a way out of mortgages and though they say it will take years, I would bet they are working behind the scenes for it to take a lot less time.   Is that part of what all that printing of money is about?

Portions of article:

More than two years after the government seized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Obama administration will recommend phasing out the housing-finance giants and gradually reducing the government's footprint in the mortgage market, according to people familiar with the matter

The administration's proposal to Congress is likely to assess the merits and drawbacks of each of the three options. The most conservative would propose no government role in the mortgage market beyond existing federal agencies, such as the Federal Housing Administration.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told PBS's Charlie Rose earlier this month that the housing-finance business was a "mess" and that the administration's plan would "crowd private capital" back in. That, he said, would curb the government role and leave "a system that will not be vulnerable to the really tragic colossal failures" of the past.

While Fannie and Freddie are already on track to reduce their combined $1.5 trillion mortgage portfolios by 10% annually, the paper could also recommend accelerating that run-off if market conditions can support it.

But some economists and regulators have warned any new government backstops would put too much risk on taxpayers. In exchange for guaranteeing loans, policy makers could face pressure to under-price guarantees. Any options must also navigate a mortgage market that has grown increasingly consolidated and risks shifting the "too-big-to-fail" risks from Fannie and Freddie to U.S. megabanks.