Mortgage Giants Leave Legal Bills to the Taxpayers

[Gerald]

Since the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers have spent more than $160 million defending the mortgage finance companies and their former top executives in civil lawsuits accusing them of fraud. The cost was a closely guarded secret until last week, when the companies and their regulator produced an accounting at the request of Congress. The bulk of those expenditures — $132 million — went to defend Fannie Mae and its officials in various securities suits and government investigations into accounting irregularities that occurred years before the subprime lending crisis erupted. The legal payments show no sign of abating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/24fees.html?hp



Note: January 24, 2011

[Skybird]

One could argue that the whole hundreds of billions-heavy bailout has been for defending fraud, mismanagement and thimblerig.

It reads like a Mafia-Thriller set in a casino. And I think the responsible caste should also end like in a Mafia Thriller: with concrete shoes at their feet.

[gimpy117]

seems fitting that the very people who are suing after being defrauded by these copanies are also paying for their defense.

I say we let them burn. free market eh? how long does the bailout last?

3 years?

5?

[Gerald]

seems fitting that the very people who are suing after being defrauded by these copanies are also paying for their defense.

I say we let them burn. free market eh? how long does the bailout last?

3 years?

5? Good question ...:hmmm:

[August]

seems fitting that the very people who are suing after being defrauded by these copanies are also paying for their defense.

I say we let them burn. free market eh? how long does the bailout last?

3 years?

5?

Dude, you might want to read up a little about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae before you talk about fraud or burning.

[gimpy117]

Dude, you might want to read up a little about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae before you talk about fraud or burning.

what do you mean? They practiced bad business practices, telling customers they could get a loan when really it was not a safe investment, and then, when the market tanked and they were stuck with all that bad debt. But because they "were too big to fail" everyone figured we better write them a blank check with little oversight.

am i right?

I get it that Fanny may and freddy mac are very important...but where do we draw the line.