fannie mae and freddie mac were implements. they were tools in the hands of congress and the administration both the clinton and the bush administration and it was hud that was -- the department of housing -- >> which is a cabinet agency. >> housing development was bringing through the mandate and being tough because there was a lot of very good political use in there for the administration to say we have serving. and in the case of the bush administration, yes, he wanted. bush was favorable to the idea of home ownership. and in his memoirs bush said he was delighted with low income people able to buy homes and the home ownership was rising but i didn't realize the risk we were undertaking at the same time. he kind of apologized in that way for what his administration did and i think that was the right way to do it. they did not realize the risk they were introducing into the housing system and ultimately into the entire financial system by forcing fannie mae and freddie mac to buy mortgages that were not well grounded. >> a co

strictly and there was a great deal of push in the bush administration are much more regulation of fannie mae and freddie mac and from their point of view especially fannie which was much more political from their point of view to avoid more regulation they had to rely on the democrats in congress. the democrats in congress were very focused on making sure that fannie and freddie supported low income housing. and so even though they were beginning in the 2000's to find that they were buying mortgages that would ultimately cause them to suffer tremendous losses, they couldn't go to congress or go to bed and say we won't comply with these quotas anymore because it's driving us out of business. we are going to fail. they couldn't do that because if they did that the democrats in congress would no longer support them and the effort of the bush administration to place them under much greater regulation this is in 2003, 2004, 2005 would have become successful and they would have been so profitable. so they were caught in the spice between on the one hand having to keep the democrats on their side a

owes them the profits of fannie mae because they bailed out fannie mae and fannie mae paid it back. they're claiming they are victims of government overreach. this is a whole nation now -- >> ben stein, what do you think of that? >> i think that when the student took out the loans they signed a contract. they have to live up to their contract and if people are inciting them to not live up to their contract those people should be sued as well. it is a very serious matter, sign a contract and if you sign it and you get the money you owe the money. it's that simple. >> here is where the kids are saying they're a little different -- graduates -- not graduates. >> they're not kids. >> it defaults it so the school defaults, they can default. >> the government is encouraged people to take out these loans. >> by the way elizabeth warren is backing this. >> that's a surprise into at the encourage them to take out the loans and act like the money is free and easy. >> right. >> and then, oh, and then when they get in trouble then the government is there, oh, we're going to help you have -- >>

lyndon johnson was certain ignorant of this history when he privatize fannie mae. his motivation was to get the obligations of the federal books because the vietnam war and the great society were polluting the deficit. similarly, richard nixon had no knowledge of history lessons when he created freddie mac is a competitor to fannie mae. in this way leaders were following the american people's demand to solve pressing problems without fussing over abstract concerns like whether a system could keep entities in mind. this is an unfortunate pattern i found throughout the process of research. for a country founded by men who have success with how institutions could ensure truly republican results. citizen ran political class of the generations has been decidedly disinterested in such questions. they hardly consider past institutional mistakes when designing new structures, part of a revisit for some shins when those institutions appear to be functioning poorly and almost unquestionably accept ad hoc structures to decidedly political. people are too quick to blame person

so having outlined my theory i briefly want to tie fannie mae and freddie mac into the story as i think it illustrates this point. for the sake of brevity i'll assume you're generally familiar with fannie and freddie. the bottom line is they combined unsafe, unsound financial practices with an unprecedented lobbying operation to protect their investors and pad the bonuses of their executives. to hell with the credit risk, was their motto. for those who study the subject fannie and freddie are government sponsored entities. they're not part of the government. they are instrumentalities of the government. they're private corporations with pentagon public charters. the first and second banks of the united states, the experience with the banks, the second bank in particular, is eerily similar to the experience of fannie mae and freddie mac. normally when we think about the second bank of the united states, we're wont to think of nick rat biddle very far-sighted financier and we tend to think of the bank war where in my opinion andrew jackson comes across as much worse. but that is as far as

charles: we've got breaking news on fannie mae and freddie mac.future profitability is far from assured from the housing finance agency of the inspector general who went onto point out these firms could chalk up losses on a derivatives portfolio similar to those they reported in the fourth quarter. this news was obscured by a lot of other events today, but nothing really should make your hair stand up more than the idea of another bailout for fannie mae and freddie mac. how could this be? net revenues while they were down 83% still 14 billion from 84 billion. they've been making a lot of money and the loan loss reserve of 61 billion down to 37 billion. it's a sign of confidence, but, in fact, if you want to see more, fannie, take in more risks. they are issuing out or back more of the loans with lower fiko scores under 660, 7% to 3%. lower loan to value. it's pretty clear that if they're in trouble, they're not acting like they're in trouble. here's the thing. fannie mae paid the u.s. treasury department 136 billion dollars since they were bailed

george bush ordered fannie mae and freddie mac to substantially increase the number of loans they bought for people below the median income. for 2005 i joined the republican chairman passing the bill in the house and the community. it passed the house. the senate republicans did not like the bill. tried to work it out have a ministration pulled the plug the chairman of the community was asked why nothing ever happened said george bush give me the one finger salute. 2,007 have become the chairman of the community and we passed the bill. and cheney's memoir the last time. some people them. [laughter] i can tell you politics mentioned benjamin franklin. [laughter] [laughter] >> there it goes. turn to my name. he says in his memoir in 2,003 we submitted a bill to reform fannie mae and freddie mac but barney frank killed it. the financial chairman of the house is being run by that time by tom delay. if i was really giving orders i would not -- there are a lot of things i would have done, stopped the big cash price and told him to go on dancing with the stars. [laughter] i said in the book in

find out why dick bove is bullish on government-owned fannie mae and freddie mac.s going to team up with charlie gasparino in a very exciting discussion, i can only imagine. and it's a new type of house call. doctors who can diagnose patients via skype. are you a believer in this? we're talking to doctor on demand ceo on a new start-up. ♪ ♪ ♪ at mfs, we believe in the power of active management. every day, our teams collaborate around the world, to actively uncover, discuss and debate investment opportunities. which leads to better decisions for our clients. it's a uniquely collaborative approach you won't find anywhere else. put our global active management expertise to work for you. mfs. there is no expertise without collaboration. liz: breaking news, the house has apd a year's worth of funding for homeland security. the news is that the house has passed the bill that would fund the the president of homeland security -- the department of homeland security for the rest of the fiscal year, that, of course, would avert a partial shutdown of homeland security which,

i was too sanguine about fannie mae and freddie mac. i started to get nervous then george bush this is in the appendices. he was substantially increase those below the median income. by 2005 by joining the republican chairman to pass a bill in the house in the committee i had problems on the floor but a pass the house the senate republican did not like it but the democrats did. put the bush administration would pull the plug and ross -- and with sarbanes-oxley they said george bush gave me though one finger salute. 2007 i become the chairman and we pass the bill. . .

franklin roosevelt was not aware of the 2nd banks troubled history when he created fannie mae. ust wanted to jumpstart the housing market. lyndon johnson was certainly ignorant of his history. his his motivation was to give fannie's obligations of the federal books. similarly richard nixon had no knowledge of history's presence. in this way leaders were simply following the american people's demand to solve pressing problems without abstract concerns like whether a system could actually keep these entities in line. this is an unfortunate pattern. for country founded by men who were obsessed with institutions could ensure a truly republican result the citizenry and the political class over generations have been decidedly disinterested in such questions. they hardly consider pass institutional mistakes when designing new structures revisit core assumptions even when those institutions appear to be functioning poorly and almost unquestionably accept ad hoc structures with provinces aside the political. people are too people are too quick to blame personalities rather than instituti

he's now in charge of regulating fannie mae and freddie mac. >> then you can insure that a 3% loan is safe as a 10% down payment loan. john: really? a 3% down payment is as safe as a 10% one? how can that be? neither mel watt nor the secretary of housing would talk to us about the government's eagerness to give your money away, but we're fortunate that former fha commissioner david stephens will. he says in his two years serving under president obama he made the system safer. but not safe enough, says ed pinto, who studied housing risk for the american enterprise institute. he says we're on the way to another bubble. >> the government is once again doing the same thing that happened in the early '90s which is saying let's loosen credit, let's give loans to people that potentially can't afford them, and everything will be fine because house prices will go up, and we won't have the same problems we had before. that clip you had -- john: they don't promise they'll go up anymore, but they're just saying if we're careful, it'll all be fine. >> on the careful point, we looked at the risk of

>> it is not shocking really because fannie mae has not learned their lesson. what was in the report is glaring omissions and commissions of gross negligence in my opinion. here is what the report said. one, is they waited for the auditor to leave. gerri: we're going now to the press conference. manny pacquiao, floyd mayweather, here they are face-to-face. take a look. the two facing off this very minute in las vegas. ♪ take a listen. as the two see each other for the last time before the big fight may 2nd. ♪ gerri: as we get ready for this let's bring in mike hill from fox sports one to talk about what we'll be talking about right now. mike, to you. i know you're following this closely. this is going to be one of the biggest fights ever. big purse, massive purse. could set records on a number of levels. pay-per-view, you name it. what do you make of it? >> jerry, we have been waiting for this fight to happen for six, maybe even seven years. the fact that it is going to finally happen on may 2nd is epic. the fact i'm watching them right now standing on the stag

george bush ordered fannie mae and freddie mac to substantially increase the number of loans they bought for people below the median income. for 2005 i joined the republican chairman passing the bill in the house and the community. it passed the house. the senate republicans did not like the bill. tried to work it out have a ministration pulled the plug the chairman of the community was asked why nothing ever happened said george bush give me the one finger salute. 2,007 have become the chairman of the community and we passed the bill. and cheney's memoir the last time. some people them. [laughter] i can tell you politics mentioned benjamin franklin. [laughter] [laughter] >> there it goes. turn to my name. he says in his memoir in 2,003 we submitted a bill to reform fannie mae and freddie mac but barney frank killed it. the financial chairman of the house is being run by that time by tom delay. if i was really giving orders i would not -- there are a lot of things i would have done, stopped the big cash price and told him to go on dancing with the stars. [laughter] i said in the book in

how could you convince the market that fannie mae and freddie mac are not backed by the full faith and credit. as a law that says they cannot drawn the credit of the united states. they have the secretary of the treasury standing on the steps of the treasury once a year and saying i reaffirm no federal guarantee that their loans always traded with a discount that indicated that the market that they were backed up by the u.s. government and guess what? they were and they got bailed out. but i did talk to a couple of economists who said you know the stocks are loans of the biggest banks also trade at a discount like.com that, indicating that the market doesn't believe the biggest banks would be allowed to go bankrupt and in 2008 we saw these bailouts happening and we saw t.a.r.p.. you can argue that the day the tea party started was the day the bush administration announced it intended to spend $800 billion bailing out the big banks and congress phones rang off the hook with nobody organizing it. congress's phone started ringing off the hook with people saying don't give $800 million to

. >>> fannie mae and freddie mac fell by over 80%.her bailout on the horizon. and how the u.s. taxpayers would react to something like that. joining us now is david stevens he is president and ceo of the mortgage bankers association. thanks for being here. >> good to be here. >> so fannie and freddie have been placed in conservatorship and 2013 was a great year for them. they gave billions of dollars back to the u.s. treasury. 2014, not so great. there is an issue where they have to draw on the credit lines of the treasury if they fall below a certain threshold. >> that's right. if you think about the earnings unheard of with any in the world. those at one times were asset recoupments. and recoupments of reserves, legal settlements, those types of things. what we saw in the last drop was what we think will be returning their levels would be. that's certainly not sustainable for two companies that have no capital and are dependent on the lines of credit the treasury department holds. >> we know this was kind of i guess, kicked into pur

the purpose of the guarantee fee is to offset fannie mae and freddie mac credit from defaults. if you use the guarantee fees to offset new spending, you are doubling the revenue. in december of 2011, congress passed a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut that was offset by increasing the gp's for 10 years. this was simply a tax increase on folks in the united states who pay mortgages to justify congressional spending. additional attempts were made to use the extension to cut offsets in other legislation. directing the guarantee fees to the treasury department rather than protecting taxpayers from mortgage losses was used because it technically brings in a new source of revenue. any increase of guarantee fees should be used to protect taxpayers from mortgage losses and as a repayment for the bailout, not for a gimmicky offset. that's why i'm offering the scorekeeping amendment with senators warner, corker, and markley, to ensure that transfers from fannie mae and freddie mac will not be used to offset increases to the deficit. it is one, a congressional mandated can only b

well various people including libertarian economists issue said for some years number one, that fannie mae and freddie mac are backed by the full faith and credit of the u.s. treasury, even though they swore they were not. we pondered in a study we did some years ago how could you convince the market that fannie mae and freddie mac are not backed up by the full faith -- there's a law that says they can not a draw on the credit of the united states. you have the secretary of the treasury stand on the steps of this treasury once a year ask say, i reafirearm no federal guarantee? but their loans always traded with a discount that indicated that the market thought they were backed up by the u.s. government and guess what they were and they got bailed out. but i did talk to a couple of economists who said you know the stocks or loans of the biggest banks also trade at a discount like that, indicating that the market doesn't believe the biggest banks would be allowed to go bankrupt, and indeed in 2008 we saw these bailouts happening. we saw t.a.r.p. you can argue that the day the tea party start

pivotal role in the 2008 financial crisis leading the morgan stanley team during the bailouts of fannie mae> baseball is in talks with news organizations about hosting news content. this would mean facebook users could view soers without clicking out of the site. the new york sometimes reports this idea is being tested and will likely roll out in a few months. the official marters in are expected to be times buzz feed and national geographic. >>> a monthly subscription fee service is the latest venture the founder of hulu, vessel is like you tube, but with a price tag. it provides early access to videos from performers. again, it is a monthly subscription fee under $3 a month. >>> congress is moving to make it easier for you to switch carriers for your cell phone and other electronic devices. >> 7 on your side's michael finney is here looking into the iske issue. >> this is big for consumers and for the valley. should buying a cell phone or tablet from one carrier mean you should have to stick with that carrier? several members of congress, including silicon valley congressional represent l

the purpose of the guaranteed fee is to offset prospective fannie mae and freddie mac credit losses from borrower defaults. thus, if you used the guaranty fees to offset new spending, then you're doubling, doubly counting the revenue n december of 2011, congress pass ad two-month extension of the payroll tax cut. that was offset by increasing the g fees for 10 years. this was simply a tax increase on mortgage, folks in the united states who obtain mortgages in order to justify congressional spending. subsequent to this additional attempts were made to use the extension of this kind of gp as cost offsets in other legislation. directing that the guaranty fees to the treasury department go to the treasury department rather than protecting taxpayers from mortgage losses was used because it technically brings in a new source of revenue. any increase of guaranty fees should be used to protect taxpayers from mortgage losses and as a repayment for the bailout, not for a gimmicky offset. that's why i'm offering this score keeping amendment with senators warner, corker and merkley to assure transf

also fit the may freddie mac i was too sanguine about fannie mae and freddie mac but by then in 2004 made me nervous then george bush since use of the increased the number of homes they bought below median income. by 2005 i joined the republican chairman to pass a bill in the house in the committee but it passed the senate republicans did not like it but i tried to work it out so the chairman of the of committee that nothing that happened with kidney or freddie said comet 2007 to become the chairman of the committee that haik paulson testifies with chaney's memoir is said the last time one of your officers so people know that is a washington read the. [laughter] and i can tell you all the politics which is benjamin franklin. sova chase says in 2003 we submitted a bill but financial-services committee chairman barney frank the problem was a was not chairman. nine tel 2007 and the house was run by tom delay. and they said if i was really at that time i had power but there are the things it would have done. i would stop the big tax cuts tell him not to look at the stars and i tell him i

worry about made while the beverage is doing the exact same thing it was doing before to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac but just a few weeks ago to told the annual not take risks on mortgages now except the 3 percent down payment up until now their lawyers insisted that the banks take 5% but now to stimulate the housing market with the same problem the government said it really you to except 3% which will be in overtime to exactly the same problem with people have mortgages that they cannot sustain when the cycle turns so we will have another crisis that has the same defect confidential institutions to have something to a financial crisis. we should have understood that it is the government's role to reform the of government rather than trying to impose those restrictions. >> host: will that be different from the last one did? >> there will always be some differences but if we keep calling this way with the government in charge we're about to have a federal judge prices again in what is important to understand this isn't something that is irrelevant to use them because for those who own

iing is you thank fannie mae lendlender that got its own get out of jail card, repeating some very familiareltdown -- watch dog warning they are pushing near no money down lone, widening applicant net gary, you are in ground zero for a lot of this, florida. what do we make of this. >> neil, it is amazeing to watch, we talked about it through 05, and 06 they would give out money to anybody with a pulse. we're starting to see a lot of low money no money down again, that scares the living willies out of me, that is going on in an environment for interest rate rigged and manipulated down, this can explode again, i think it can and i worry very much going forward. neil: are are we revisiting this. >> absolutely, i am on the same page with gary, they are so desperate to get anybody to buy i house 18 year low in homeownership, what happened to this package that stimulate the economy? desperate to give out mortgages like they used to is back on the table. they want to push housing housing drives an economy they know that. neil: all right last issue maybe that last one. got you in a fighting mood, m

time when these laws were being made the knew democrats gave them terrible loans and protected fannie mae and freddie mac. by 1994 democrats worried about those loans telling the federal reserve to regulate them. that is an interference in the market. we tried on several occasions the states passed laws to regulate predatory lending. the administration used federal power to preempt that. the state banks become national banks. in 2,004 democrats passed a bill to restrict subprime lending. when i became chairman in 2,007 i did not get a bill through the community. no lending to people who cannot pay you back. the "wall street journal" attacked me. why doesn't he want minority groups to have loans. 2,007. all before the crash. here is what he said i am aware of the loosening of mortgage credit terms for subprime borrowers increases financial risk and subsidized homeownership initiatives distort market outcomes. i believe that has now you have the power to regulate. the benefits of homeownership are worth the risk. protection of property rights so critical to a market economy requires a criti

government told wall street, you reap the profits and we'll get fannie mae and freddie mac to stick taxpayers with your losses. they took us up on that and then my colleagues are shocked that they did. it used to be that if a bank made a bad loan, they ate the loss. and they went away sadder but wiser. and if a homebuyer took out a bad loan, they lost the collateral and they went away sadder but wiser, but in either case they left the rest of us alone. the damage was limited to the responsible parties. rather than returning to a market system where lenders and borrows are free to negotiate their own terms, analyze their own risk and make their own decisions with their own money, we institutionalized every folly that led to the collapse by adopting dodd-frank. this is the definition of insanity. doing the same thing and expecting a different result. this budget starts to move us back toward the sensible mechanism of a free market. i yield back. mr. rokita: does the gentleman yield back? the gentleman yields back. mr. lieu, you're recognized. mr. lieu: the cfpb is answerable to congress, the sa

other look at farm subsidies and in the the porkbarrel medicare and corporate taxes and fannie mae. all five those areas the benefits are clearly outweighed by the cost. and i think that the waste -- i sort of -- it was sort of a spitball because you can't get precise estimates. i sort of rank the chapter so that the father in the book you go the more wasteful and pernicious the effects of the policy are. .. boomers retire end this inefficient system that privileges waste and playoffs is going to become more expensive. >> i often said if you start from the premise of thinking financial regulation is about stability or safety and soundness. one of the things that struck me, a commonality and insurance, it was all kind of hidden, it works on issues a lot. really out rage you about what is on budget, it seems to be contingent liabilities, what let me ask you, it is it the corruption is worse when there's an element of budgetary secrecy? >> i would say so. i would say there is and the extent to which they are hidden is extraordinary. >> it seems like i remember when everybody kept telli

freddie back and a friend in a swarm of stack of bibles they were not how can you convince the market fannie mae and freddie mac are not backed up. there is a law that says they cannot draw the credit of the united states. the secretary of the treasury stands on the steps of the treasury wants to hear and says i reaffirm though federal guarantee. but the loans always treated with a discount at the market copy were backed up by the government and guess what, they were but i did talk to a couple economists who said the stalks or the loans of the biggest banks also trade at a discount like that indicating that the market doesn't believe the biggest banks would be allowed to go bankrupt and indeed in 2008 leaseholder bailout happening. you can argue the day that the key party started as the the day that the bush administration announced it intended to spend $800 billion bailing out the big banks and their phones ring off the hook with nobody organizing it. so i'm opposed to too big to fail. they would make their own decisions if they had to stand on their own 2 feet. they would let the banks fail if

the fha, federal housing administration fannie mae freddie mac all put tax payer money is the risk bynting mortgages or buying them. these invite reckless behavior guarantees on top of politicians pressuring banks to long under served needy people they led to the last housing bubble. >> they owed more on their mortgage than the home is worth. >> incredible housing bubble they created. >> it was incredible a speculative frenzy. otherwise investors started saying housing prices can only go up the prices went up wildly until they didn't. the popping of the bubble is bad lots of people lost lost of money. we learned something from our mistakes. at the tell them you only have to put 3 percent down. except actually government is now doing that again. a few months ago fanny and freddie after raising their minimum down payment to a measly 5 percent lowered them to 3 percent. are they crazy? a sensible congressman tried to get an answer about that from the administration's mortgage regulator. >> all things being equal is a 3 percent down low riskyer than a 10 percent down loan. >> that is gene

some stocks helping ackman bb hughes corps and fannie mae.ll in all the s&p had a pretty block quarter despite lots of volatility in the hedge fund. they have done a little bit better for the first time in some time up about 20% through february. so we'll see. >> and they're not used to out-performing the broader index. >> they underperformed the broad index and defender of a hedge fund will say maybe some of you agree, the point is to hedge. maybe you do less badly than the market in a year like 2008. maybe not as well in a year like this year. maybe you're diversifying your portfolio. >> that's definitely worked. it's a case where look at the volatility in the first quarter. in a bull market, always going to out perform. in favor of hedge funds b, they are there to deliver more absolute returns. a market going straight up is always going to out perform unless the hedge fund is swaying for the fences. >> until yesterday we didn't see two back-to-back gains for the major stock indices for a month. >> no. it's been a very volatile quarter. som

in this environment, fannie mae and freddie mac are buying things -- credit score 620 and above.ingle item will probably not sink somebody low enough that they'll be shut out altogether, unless they have some other dents in the car also. so if you've got good credit and proof of income, money for a down payment, that one erroneous payment won't shut you out. it may bring your interest rate higher. >> we should mention, lest you think people that don't pay their bills get a free ride, if you wait 180 days, it's fair game for these agencies to put that debt on your credit rating. right? >> yeah. in the case of the medical debt, absolutely. this is not something that will let people skip out on bills they otherwise owe. it gives that 180 day period, if it's a dispute between the provider -- >> which it almost is. you're almost always in dispute with some part of your insurance bill. it just makes sure that that doesn't interfere with your overall credit rating. >> absolutely. the whole idea is accuracy here. as consumers, we have to do our part too. pull copies of your credit report

stacy via infowest.com: yep fannie mae is going to lower their borrowing standards while our banks areal reserve find more ways to print and borrow more money. patrick: it is time for a full accounting for where the money went, because it certainly wasn't stimulated much. keep pushing. hannah in maine: i think your comments were brilliant. who is the government to judge anyone's fiscal soundness? there are brains in that big skull of yourselves clearly. really? had to go there with the pug skull? rick: it's not the government doing these stress tests, cavuto, why not an outside accounting firm or rating service? or failing that, go ahead and have the government do it. then take the same stress test on itself. perform one on itself. see how it does. karen writes: neil, what did you mean when you said the government's sloppy spending is behind the meager recovery we have? it is a recovery can, right? so why don't you shut up? well, karen, between the federal reserve pumping trillions of dollars propping up our markets and the president pushing us trillions of dollars more in debt for the

also, the federal agencies fannie mae, freddie mac piled up huge amounts of derelict loans.t scam in both the public and private sectors collapsed the economy. so president obama's facts about the recession are debatable to say the least. certainly not in stone truth. and, believe me, you will not hear this analysis on the nightly news broadcast or other cable news operations. you will only hear it here on fox news. not because we dislike president obama although some fnc commentators clearly do. it's because people like charles krauthammer, brit hume, megyn kelly, dana perino and others are fact-based analysts. and that is a clear threat to any politician or political party that's trying to deceive people or trying to promote policies that are failures. so to blunt the impact of fox news we're attacked by the left and derided by the other media you see that consistently on msnbc and cnn, which are both collapsing in the ratings. i mean last night i turned on cnn at 9:00 p.m. to see what they were reporting. i saw anthony bore deign eating soup in india or some place. the so

they have the same treasures with fannie mae and freddie mac. they have the same subprime situation, they don't call it subprime. they have a mortgage insurance bubble that is really interesting driven by the cmhc and gen worth up there. that has existed a couple years. in my business it's all about timing. what is the timing to pop that bubble? and we really see oil as the pin to pop the canadian housing bubble. if you look at the canadian provenÇal markets, atlantic, canada, has been soft and unemployment going up for several months, even a couple quarters now, the same is true in quebec very soft, rolled over last year in the middle of the year, but alberta and saskatchewan where the oil boom have been going on have been strong and kept the stats up until now. january like they fell out of bed. calgary home sales listings up 40% and sales down 40% in january alone. never seen such a dropoff. and so if you continue to see soft oil prices you're going to see the beginning of weakness there and because the setup is so leveraged and loss ratios a

subsidies and i look at the porkbarrel and the delicate medicare and corporate tax is and then fannie mae. i think of all five those areas i think the benefits are clearly outweighed by the costs. i think the waste i sort of roughly it was sort of a spit public educated precise estimates on these things but i sort of rank the chapters so the farther in the book you go the more wasteful and pernicious effects of the policy are. so by the time you get to financial regulatory reform and to see what, or regulation and juicy revelatory capture actually happening and it's overwhelming, the indication that this was not this was not managing the venal and diffraction for the sake of the greater good. the that somehow somehow failed to i think you see them, especially in the two prior chapters on corporate taxes and medicare. in 20 years if i were to write this book medicare would be the last chapter in the book by a long shot because the waste in her to medicare going to become more problematic by an order of magnitude as the baby boomers retire and this inefficient system that privileges, that p

nearly seven years after one of the biggest taxpayer bailouts in history, r fannie mae is under firell new investigation. we'll have the details. >>> the clinton email controversy grows. new questions today over what the former secretary of state deleted. >> look, bridesmaids dresses or wedding cake, i don't care about that but if it's a public record, you should have act test to it. gerri: being billed as the fight of the century. floyd mayweather and manny pacquiao face off today ahead of the richest fight in boxing history. >>> also consumer reports is here with its annual new car issue. they will tell us the one big

thing that i would mention particularly important to wall street, that this legend anticipates that fannie mae and freddie mac are privatized, and that on the too big to fail front this budget anticipates removing the ability for the fdic to bail out and failed financial institution. stephanie: peter cook, thank you. joe: back to the israeli election, voters are choosing between incumbent brian minister benjamin netanyahu, and a coalition led by herzog. our bloomberg middle east editor is in tel aviv. elliott? elliott: thank you very much. we have the polls closing in just under six hours. great to have you with me. you are quite close to benjamin netanyahu. is he on his way out? >> we think he is on the ropes. the optimal -- outcome will be very tight. the segment of the electorate of that is right of center is larger than the electorate that is left of center. so just and broad numbers of the aggregate vote share that is sympathetic to him and his point of view is greater than the opposition. but it is a fragmented white -- right wing. he has been in power for a long time. he is focused on s

we're fannie mae miller and susan b.ook the system until the law reflected that truth. that is our character. we're the immigrants who stowed away on ships to reach these shores. the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. holocaust survivors. soviet keydefectors, the lost boys of sudan. we're the hopeful strivers who crossed the rio grande because we want our kids to know a better life. that's how we came to be. we're the slaves who built the white house. and the economy of the south. we're the ranch hands and cowboys who opened up the west. the countless laborers who laid rail and raised skyscrapers and organized for workers rights. we're the fresh-faced gis who fought to liberate a continent and we're the tuskegee airmen and the navajo code talkers and the japanese americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied. we're the firefighters who rushed into those buildings on 9/11. the volunteers who signed up to fight in afghanistan and iraq. we're the gay americans who blood ran in the str

the budget assumes that fannie mae and freddie mac would be privatized, and it also eliminates the fdic'smajor financial institutions that go under. he wants to and any notion of too big to fail -- and any notion of too big to fail. betty: still to come, adidas has decided not to renew its deal as the nba's official outfitter which they have been for over 10 years. why the second-largest sportswear company is taking itself out of the game. ♪ betty: trading just under way. we are in the red again on this tuesday morning. scarlet fu has much more on the early action. scarlet: it is a consolidation of yesterday's advances in today's a day of path, and markets are taking a breather before the fed statement tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. i had that, here is what moving. they videogame maker teaming up the kardashians debuting a new game in late 2015. staying with the retail idea, gsw having its biggest gain in half a year. the company boosted its dividend, burlington stores also saw better than anticipated results. linkedin is trading at a five-week low right now after green capital began coverage of t

there were millions of people who were able to take advantage of refinances of relief -- under the fannie mae and freddie mac programs as well as tarp. roland: in the book they said that some 4 million were supposed to be impacted john: when you look at the tarp program, as well as people assisted, and voluntary loan modification by the financial institutions a very significant number of people were able to take advantage of those programs and try to work out a situation. there were admittedly a lot of people who lost homes might have been able to save them but for mistakes in terms of the way the policies were administered but a large number of people were able to use a variety of programs. >> is really saying that i am a regulator of them are the audience and i am not saying a word on this. [laughter] but good try. and by the way the 72,000 former slaves that lost money in the freedman's bank, they got half of their money back because of the occ. the comptroller of the currency on wound it and it -- unwound it, and they tried to give the money back to former slaves and they got half the mon

that never changes. 30-year fixed-rate mortgages also known as conventional loans, are backed by fannie mae or freddie mac. they're amortized over 30 years, meaning you have 30 years of fixed monthly mortgage payments. this is a popular option because you have peace of mind knowing your loan payment will always stay the same. and with the 30 year fixed, you could pay as little as 5% of the total home cost on your down payment. or refinance up to 95% of your primary home's value. this can be a great option whether you are a first time home buyer or refinancing your existing mortgage. 30-year fixed-rate mortgages are perfect for home buyers who plan to be in their homes for many years because they offer the consistency of an interest rate and payment that never change. they're a great choice if you're looking for a lower monthly payment, and the 30-year fixed-rate option is also available on fha or v.a. loans. does a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage sound right for you? >> quicken loans also offers an adjustable-rate mortgage program with some of the lowest mortgage rates available. these arms are