4 ms·
> One possibility here is for the government to cancel its entire $348.4 billion senior preferred claim for the benefit of existing common and preferred shareho
by onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
> One possibility here is for the government to cancel its entire $348.4 billion senior preferred claim for the benefit of existing common and preferred shareholders. That is obviously what those shareholders want
It seems the only reason the government should give up ~$28B in revenue PER YEAR for literally nothing is to put the government in more debt and give free money to Bill Ackman.
- floren 1y agoYeah it would be pretty fucked up if the current administration pushed something that's bad for the US government but very good for some billionaires. I assume the only reason it hasn't happened yet is that Trump is still figuring out how to tank Fannie/Freddie shares beforehand so he and his cronies can buy them up like they did with the on-again off-again tariff threats.
- jgalt212 1y ago> Yeah it would be pretty fucked up if the current administration pushed something that's bad for the US government but very good for some billionaires. It's both parties--and it's been this way since the end of the cold war. There's no longer a need to say we're better than the alternative. The dems cancelled student debt--a gift to both debtors in the investor class. Harris's campaign trail housing push was also a gift to the investor class. And the Fed printed $9T while dems were in office.
- shigawire 1y agoIn your example student loan relief also has a tangible benefit to indebted people. Affordable housing initiatives benefit people who need housing.
- jgalt212 1y agoMy point was everything the dems do to help out the poor also has the side effect of helping out the investor class. They say they help out the poor, and they do, but they also keep the plutocrats plutocratic.
- roxolotl 1y agoWhat would helping the poor without helping investors at all look like to you?
- jgalt212 1y agoLoosening up zoning laws to allow for much greater supply of housing. Blue states don't do this because it would be bad for the investor class who's owns real estate.
- williamcotton 1y agoIn states where there are looser zoning laws and more housing is built, who invests in and profits more from the new construction, the investor class or the poor?
- onlyrealcuzzo 1y agoWho un-benefits more from there not being enough housing? The rich or the homeless?
- jgalt212 1y agoIn such scenarios, there are no excess returns from home construction. Homebuyers benefit from abundant supply.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoSome blue states have done this, including California, Oregon, Connecticut, and Maine. I expect more will follow.
- bko 1y agoAs the article discusses, the government owns virtually every dollar of profit Fannie/Freddie. I don't see how tanking the private shares (worthless in the current state) would benefit Trump or his cronies. Those shares are already owned by billionaires, I guess new ones can buy them?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y agoThose billionaires could buy Trump-Coin, or Trump-Stock, or just dump trucks full of cash on the white house lawn. The mechanisms for bribery are manyfold and consequence free. They don't even bother pretending its anything but anymore.
- dsr_ 1y agoThe obvious play is for a staffer to invite Bill Ackman to play golf at a Trump course and explain that a big investment in whatever bribery scheme Trump has going now would make it easier to sell Fannie and Freddie.
- bko 1y agoI don't think its a good idea but I think it's in the long run interest of the government/taxpayer to divest out of Fannie/Freddie. The current situation makes that impossible, so they'll have to take some kind of haircut. As the article discusses, one of the options is to screw over current investments (Ackman) and raise an IPO, although it would be impossible to raise enough to buy the government out at its current stake. Of course the big caveat is that once private, the government needs to ensure another bailout is not possible.
- onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago> As the article discusses, one of the options is to screw over current investments (Ackman) and raise an IPO Ackman is not getting screwed. When the government essentially nationalized Fannie and Freddy, they made it clear that the stock in those companies was worthless. Ackman bought it, thinking his billions would be enough to lobby the government into zeroing out their share and handing him $600B. He's not getting screwed if they say, "you bought worthless stock, and it's still worthless, sorry."
- margalabargala 1y ago> He's not getting screwed if they say, "you bought worthless stock, and it's still worthless, sorry." Sure he is. He's just doing it to himself.
- TuringNYC 1y agoThey can divest out of Fannie/Freddie but we'll still have the liability, just as a shadow liability. Fannie/Freddie are Too Big to Fail, so the next time things get bad, we'lljust need to step back in.
- bormaj 1y agoWhat's the net benefit to the taxpayer/government for divesting from Fannie/Freddie?