so that is certainly something treasury could have done, fhfa could have done and, certainly, we would have -- i think, in my opinion -- >> would you have done it? >> i would have imposed losses on creditors, absolutely. >> [inaudible] federal housing finance agents, fhfa can put 'em in receivership, fannie and freddie both. >> i recommended that from the beginning, get shareholders out of the equation. because until you take shareholders out of the equation, fannie and freddie are in this anomalous position where the government has, under law, has stepped into the position of the board and management to try to restore these institutions to financial health. and what that means is that fhfa constantly gets whip sawed with these demands, gee, we want you to support national housing policy, and they come back, and today say, hey, our legal responsibility is to support the gses, and that means tighter credit standards than other policymakers might warrant. in other words, the public/private mix that made the gses so hard for people to deal with in the beginning is continuing to confound p

fhfa won't approve the big principal reduction is the way demonstration has helped, so the regulators, the occ is now engaging in, whether it's eight and half for $10 billion of new modifications. this is just something, kind of like the trillion dollar coins that are bypassing the constitution. gerri: but you're not answering my question. why is this wealth redistribution? >> taking money from the banks and handing it out to people that they be more the. gerri: all right. do you agree? >> let's feesorry for the banks. i mean, come on. what is, you have to do your homework. the independent consultants. if you talk to the independent consultants, what they say is that they are documenting that the banks of modifications that were available for tens of thousands, hundreds ofthousands of homeowners, and those banks did not give those home owners the opportunity to save their homes, so they lost their homes. so the independent consultants are out there showing that these banks were doing violations, doing illegal activity, taking people's homes, the opportunity was there. also, this is no

. >> i wanted to percent agree. 10% are owned by fannie and freddie fhfa is a private label then you take federal government property which the fhfa has indicated publicly and may have to step in the glee if you take federal property to interfere with their conservatorship powers. >> it is not all or nothing. the present value calculations has been around if those loans identified i from the net present value then that could be explained to any investor and this is what have been to willy-nilly. there are ways the program could work for the securities market is not impacted than they would say i am understand that. it makes sense. but the challenge is the details how the program is structured. >>. >> mike complement's for putting together this panel. there are many investors betting dollars of problem with the of solution but i want to direct my question knu reiterate how something impacts the union, seniors and what dorothy's unforeseen consequences that they are attempting the worthwhile program? while the help a few may impact many americans. >> that was an outstanding question. t

private-label security, 10 percent of them are owned by fannie and freddie, which the f fhfa is a conservative for. if you start taking loans that private-label securities are taking federal government property which the f hcfa has publicly indicated they are concerned about and may have to step in legally if you start taking federal property and interfere with their conservatorship hours. >> i don't think it is all or nothing. the fact of the matters, the development of value calculations have been around throughout the foreclosure crisis. the loans are identified under the eminent domain program are those that show a net present value beneficial to the investor and homeowner, and those are the only loans that were selected for the program, that could be explained to any investor that you are not losing but gaining money and once again go back to lawsuits that say this is what happens when you don't do what you should be. you end up with lawsuits. i do believe that there are ways in which the program could work, the securities market would not be impacted at all, and investors year or around

private-label securities, 10% of them are owned by fannie and freddie with fhfa is a conservative for fannie and freddie. but you start taking loans to private security, then taking federal government property, the fhfa is probably already indicated they are very concerned about this and potentially meant to step and legally if you start taking federal property and interfere with their conservatorship pow power. [inaudible] >> i don't think it's all or nothing. the fact of the matter is, they develop a net present value calculations has been run off throughout the foreclosure crisis. if, in fact, the loans that are identified under the eminent domain program are those that show a net present value that's beneficial to the investor and homeowner, and those with a loans, the only ones that were collected for the program, and that could be explained in investor in fact you're not losing money, you're gaining money. once again go back to those lawsuits that say this is what happened when you willy-nilly shouldn't be doing which you are doing. you end up with a lot of losses. i believe the