we continue the ban on gse lobbing? >> yes. we actually are continued the ban on gse lobbing. >> tranthank you, mr. chairman. welcome back director watt. how is the family? >> the family is good. >> good, good. thank you. >> we hope it's going to grow. >> thank you for being here. although there are operational costs involved in requiring the gses to update the credit scoring model that they used in their cellar service guidelines, the gses are still using the fight go classic model in their service or guidelines, despite the fact that newer versions of fight go including fight go '08 and fight go on nine are currently available in the marketplace. given us how concerned are you that the failure to compel the gse to use the most updated credit scoring models in their seller service guidelines may not be given the gses the best available assessment of whether a borrower is a good credit risk and may be unnecessarily restricted credit eligible borrower? >> well, your question illustrates the difficulty of this because to move fro

you're the regulator for the gses. and i would like to beg to differ with you a little bit that your opinion is greatly appreciated. what i'm trying to get across f i may, is that we have two very large institutions that do not abide by the same capital requirements as other nongovernment institutions around this country. i might also add f i may, if you're looking at fannie mae with dpz 3.3 trillion in assets, and this has been said here before, they have roughly $10 billion in assets, but they're asking the taxpayers to backstop $3.3 trillion in loans. now, if you're looking at freddie mac -- excuse me, you're looking at freddie mac, they have about $13 billion in assets and backstopping $2.2 trillion. i think we could both agree, i hope so, that these organizations are grossly undercapitalized and represent one heck of a risk to the taxpayers if something goes wrong. would you agree with that, sir? >> i have two responses to it. one of which i've already given which is, i didn't set up the preferred stock purchase a

and they will be until gse reform is done. and we can't do that -- we don't do gse reform. that's why it's so important for congress to act on gse. >> i saw some nice income figures. i presume part of that is the settlement of lawsuits with different entities. do you have lawsuits pending now? >> there are three more lawsuits, two more lawsuits pending. >> when you win those lawsuits do those dollars to go to your capital account or treasury? >> they will go into freddie and fannie's account. and if at the end of the year there are profits they will be swept to treasury. yes. >> very good. one of the concerns that i have also is with regards to the way that you're pricing things and the way that you are changing some of your rules and regulations. having been in the loaning money for 35 years i can tell you there's tenets of lending. you can't get away from them. certain things have to happen. if you don't you lose. it's just that simple. everybody wants to say i can slice it thinner i'm a little smarter than the next guy. it doesn't work. after 35 years of stubbing my nose

>> are you going to continue the ban on gse lobbying? >> i beg your pardon? >> are you going to continue the ban on gse lobbying? >> absolutely we're going to continue the ban on gse lobbying. >> i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes mr. clay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome back. how is it the family? >> the family is good. >> good, good. thank you. >> it's going to grow. >> thank you for being here. although there are operational costs involved in requiring the gses to update the credit scoring model that they use in their seller service guidelines, the gses are still using the pricing molgds despite the fact that newer versions, including cycle '08 and '09 are apparently available in the that the failure to compel the gses to use their most updated credit scoring models and their seller service guidelines may not be given the gses the best available assessment of whether a borrower is a good credit risk, and may be unnecessarily restricting credit to eligible borrowers? >> well, your question illustrates the difficulty of this

fhfa orders gses to start supporting affordable housing trust funds. now, surprisingly, the year here here is not 2005. it's 2015. and so we find the fha today engaged in this race with fannie and freddie to see who can more swiftly crowd out the private sector, who can assume more risk on behalf of the american taxpayer. and i would just point out that this was a frightening race here because in my view, we've seen it before. the fhfa has joined sort of a moral hazard problem here. and in december, you announced that the gses should begin to put more money through the housing trust fund established under the housing and economic recovery act. and you made this move despite the fact that fannie and freddie have yet to repay a lot of the money due to the american people. we can argue about whether it's 200 billion, but there was a lot of money lost at the end of the day because of overleverage. so it is difficult to see how you can argue that as it is required by law the gses are financially stable enough to begin the transfer of money to housing groups

everything that you just talked about, you can change by doing gse reform. >> mr. watt, everybody wants a healthy economy. and the taxpayers in our district of maine were some of the hardest working most honest people you could ever meet. they want to make sure they have a government that works for them ask not against them and i happen -- and not against them, and i happen to believe that accountability in all stages of government, all levels of government are a good thing. i'm very concerned about these large institutions that are highly leveraged with very little capital that's requiring the taxpayers to backstop them when we have interest rates at historic lows, historic lows with a rise in interest rate that could cause a problem with the housing market and also our economy, wouldn't you agree that it makes sense to take a look at -- >> time of the gentleman has expired. a brief answer please. >> i think i've already answered your question to best of my ability to do it, representative. >> thank you very much, sir. >> that was brief. chair now recognizes the g

she's the president of and owner and gse dynamics and a council member of the national women's business council, it's a nonpartisan federal advisory council that makes policy recommendations to the white house, congress and the sba on economic issues of importance to women business owners. it's so great to see you. >> thanks so much. >> i'm, i'm so interested in this topic. and in part because i do think there was a time when a woman would go in to a venture capitalist, for instance and they would just see female and be less interested. from my experience, and talking to people who i talk to, there's less of that now. right? i mean -- >> i agree. >> you see these fast-growing female-run companies, you are an investor you want to be a part of these. >> absolutely. >> but something is going on because if you look at the statistics, women aren't getting as much money. so what's happening? >> well i think absolutely there are distinctive differences. the data suggests that in our report. but i think the important thing to note also about these distinctive differences is we are bridging that

not to the housing gses, and that that will be beneficial for shareholders.why did they believe it the last three days and now not so much? >> because people are starting to realize the stock popped. and i told people this. this is a penny stock. straigtrading at $3. it's above $3 a share now. the bottom line is this, both fannie and freddie, these traders got in on that news and the news that basically this is a 30-dollar stock. that the courts will rule in their favor. again, that's a playoff what the greenberg trade is all about. that combined with my story sent the stock up, traders are trading out, and that's what i'm saying, when you trade stocks for a living or you do it in your basement, this is something to be careful about. these are volatile. greenberg's case is being heard, the oral arguments, final oral arguments in march, in the spring sometime, it will be over. if he wins, there will be a pop in fannie and freddie just on the reasons i mentioned. during the story though, i just found this amazing stuff that's going on. there is kind of an allia

you know, i'm critical of the obama administration all the time, but think of it this way, this is a gsestablished through an act of congress which is different than aig which is, you know, started the regular, old-fashioned way through an entrepreneur. and, you know, the government bailed it out, and now the government has taken the profits for the treasury. is that bad? liz: no. >> i mean, i'm getting these trolls saying i'm against shareholder -- liz: oh, stop. totally different case. >> i'm for shareholder rights. i'm not for bailed-out companies, you know, screwing the taxpayer and getting a second chance at it. liz: charlie, thank you. of go deal with trolls on your twitter page. >>> coming up tonight, two can't-miss episodes of "strange inheritance." host jamie colby is going to figure out whether a family business devastated by superstorm sandy can be rescued by comic book superheroes. listen. >> i put the very first comic book out, and i looked it up, and it said $1200. and i screamed. and then i took the next one, and that one was $2,000 and $3,000 and $4,000. and i was screami

in the case of my book the corruption inherent to the first gses. the first and second banks of united states experience with the bank's second bank in particular eerily similar to the experience of fannie mae and freddie mac. normally when we think about the second bank of the united states we think of nicholas biddle was a farsighted financier and if we think beyond him we tend to think of the bank where in my opinion andrew jackson comes across as much worse. but that's as far as the common understanding usually goes. but it overlooks something which is that the bank had been in place for a decade before biddle came on board and it was terribly rife politicized and self-interested bank managers abuse the public good out of ignorant vanity and banality and all the while the government could do practically nothing about until it's too late. the reason why is the bank was well-connected into the political system. members of congress were given advance salaries for instance. they received campaign contributions. they got personal loans. this greasing

about the third amendment that said we'll take all of those -- we'll take all of the profits from gsesnto treasury. interesting story from "the times" about the correspondence and e-mails kept private, raising the question did it have anything to do with the budget stand-off and the fact they wanted as much revenue coming in as they possibly could get? i wanted to mention freddie mac. >> guys involved in treasury very savvy about this and do recognize that this fannie mae/freddie mac windfall could end. it may end but it doesn't appear to be ending anytime soon. >> the companies -- remember when peter lynch loved fannie mae? they decided under the range administration, take huge housing risk at the wrong time. always a profitable fee-based business. yeah, i still think if you read -- i think those profits belong -- >> enormous risk. nobody's gone to jail. >> jim stewart. >> in "the times." winners for the week on the nasdaq 100, regeneron, celgene, biogen. but facebook in the top four. >> yeah. facebook, facebook basically, you know people reval waiting, it's a rerating of the company.