USA: Fannie Mae und Freddie Mac wieder staatlich kontrolliert

@ Paljusevic, Franjo [#1]

Das war absehbar. Die Frage ist, wie sich das an den Märkten auswirken wird.

@ scorpion260 [#2]

Wer glaubt, daß das Platzen der Telekom- und Internetblase, mit der Pleite von ein paar Dotcoms und daraus resultierenden Kursrückgängen der Aktienindices, bedeutender für die Weltwirtschaft war, als das Platzen der Blasen an den Immobilien- und Kreditmärkten, mit einhergehenden Bankpleiten, der geht jetzt long.

"US Is "More Communist than China": Jim Rogers"

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnbc/080908/26603489.html

Grüß Gott,

da ich weder Volkswirt noch Profi an der Börse bin, darf ich es sagen, ich verstehe die Reaktion der Börsen auf die Übernahme der Geschäfte von FM und FM durch den Staat nicht.

Natürlich ist mir klar, dass der Finanzsektor aufatmet, da ja jetzt für ca. 50% (5-6 Billionen $)der amerikanischen Hypothekenkredite der Staat gerade steht.
Aber warum stiegen am Montag die Aktienkurse durch die Bank, nicht nur der Finanzsektor ? Warum wird der Dollar nicht schwächer, wenn doch die US Staatsverschuldung, wie ich gelesen habe um wohl mindestens 200 Milliarden zunimmt ?

Oder ist das am Montag nur ein Strohfeuer von Großanlegern ?
Hat man nun Rückstellungen im Rahmen der Hypothekenkrise wieder für Investitionen zur Verfügung ?

Kann mir vielleicht jemand Informationen geben ?

Gruß
Peter

@ Paljusevic, Franjo [#1]

Hi Franjo,

habe Dir ja schon vor Monaten gesagt das die USA andere Probleme haben als ein Bond Rollover.

Asset Deflation wohin man schaut: Aktien runter,Immos runter,Rohstoffe runter, Bankenpleiten, Bonds hoch (bzw. stabil), Verstaatlichungen von Banken..Japanische Krankheit.

Sieht so ne Megainflation aus? Nee..das dauert noch.

Mit der Verstaatlichung von Freddie und Fannie wurde jedenfalls die Büchse der Pandora, die Abwicklung der Kreditausfallversicherungen, geöffnet. Mal sehen ob alles glatt läuft.

@ wuelle [#7]

Die großen Kapitalisten schwingen mit den Werkzeugen des Sozialismus. War das nicht schon immer so?

@ select [#8]

wenn ich richtig interpretiere, sieht's die Deutsche Bank das ebenfalls so.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajsxbVS.W2lQ&refer=home

<snip>
``Although the settlement effort will be massive, we do not see it as necessarily a negative,'' Gus Medeiros, credit analyst at Deutsche Bank in Sydney, wrote today in a research note. ``Write downs are potentially an issue for holders of preferred equity, but the Treasury said financial institutions exposed to these securities will work with regulators to restore capital positions.''
<snip>

Droht bei Einforderung der CDS jetzt die nächste Kettenreaktion?

@ select [#8]

Du meinst, Verstaatlichung ist ein Werkzeug des sozialistischen Staates?

Verstaatlichung erfährst du doch ständig auch im kapitalsitischen Staat, wenn du Steuern bezahlst!

Aber zu F und F:

Den beiden war/ist doch die praktische Abwicklung der Geschäfte im Rahmen eines Subventionsprogramms des amerikanischen Staates zugewiesen.

Sie sind Erfüllungsgehilfen beim staatlichen Subventionsprogamm "eigene vier wände" im amerikanischen Stil.

Einmal herausgekürzt, was da alles falschgelaufen ist, ist doch jetzt nur als Ergebnis:

Beide kommen ihre Aufgabe als Erfüllungsgehilfen in ihrer aktuellen Kondition nicht mehr nach. Am Subventionsprogramm soll selbst nicht gerüttelt werden, an ihm lag es auch nicht, dass F und F nicht mehr so können, wie es ihre "Aufgabe" wäre, also zurück zum ausgangspunkt: F und F wieder staatlich.

Gibt es in der Geschichte doch immer wieder:

Ausführung staatlicher Ordnungpolitik (und dazu kann auch gehören bspw. Subventionierung des Immobilienmarktes)wird an Private, Regiebetriebe, halbstaatliche Betrieb delegiert.
Die machen das in Folge nicht so wie gewünscht.
Dann halt wieder zurück.

Tätigkeiten, welche der Staat als unverzichtbar für sich definiert, und welche für den zur Erfüllung auserwählten Gehilfen, aus welchen Gründen auch immer, zum wirtschaftlichen scheitern führen, übernimmt er dann halt wieder selbst.

So wie die BRD bspw. eine privatisierte Bundesbahn, welche an die Wand fahren würde, sofort wieder verstaatlichen würde.

Daran ist erstmal nichts sozialistisch.

Eigentlich wird an F und F deutlich, dass der kapitalistische Staat mehr von der Wirkungsweise des freien Marktes versteht, als die, die den freien Markt vs. zurück-/raushaltung des Staates immer fordern.

Und das ist auch kein Wwunder; Hat er ihn doch "erfunden".

P.S. Ich habe oben ausgeklammert, was bei F und F alles falsch gelaufen ist/sein könnte. Das wäre nochmal eine andere Diskussion.

@ wuelle [#7]
@ select [#8]

Wo ist der Unterschied zur IKB hier in Deutschland?

@ IngoM [#11]

Ordnungspolitisch gibt es keinen Unterschied. Der Unterschied ist, daß unsere Regierung die IKB an jemanden verkauft hat, den sie selber als Heuschrecke verunglimpfen.

Nur die Höhe der Kreditausfallversicherungen ist bei IKB nicht so hoch. Der Markt für Kreditausfallversicherungen, geschätztes Volumen 62.000 Mrd Dollar, ist im momentanen Umfeld einen tickende Zeitbombe. Wobei die Schadenssumme bei den beiden staatlichen Hedgefunds Fannie und Freddie ja noch überschaubar sein dürfte, weil die Anleihen kursstabil sind.

@ wuelle [#12]

was machst denn du grad, oder hast gemacht, ob deiner Analyse?

für die weitere stoffsammlung:

hörenswerte Diskussionsrunde (auf video klicken)

http://www.weissgarnix.de/?p=481#more-481

Die Fragen von peterg (#5) sind völlig untergegangen. Hat keiner eine Erklärung für ihn?

@ wolli211 [#14]

zu den fragen in #5

zu der strohfeuerfrage. Da war am Dienstag der Markt selbst schon dabei die Antwort zu geben.

"Natürlich ist mir klar, dass der Finanzsektor aufatmet, da ja jetzt für ca. 50% (5-6 Billionen $)der amerikanischen Hypothekenkredite der Staat gerade steht."

Der Staat steht nicht für die Kredite gerade. Bei den beiden F's stehen die doch als Forderungen.

Montag ließe sich im sport beschreiben als das Bejubeln des Tors zur 1:3 Verkürzung.

@ peterg [#5]
@ wolli211 [#14]

"Aber warum stiegen am Montag die Aktienkurse durch die Bank, nicht nur der Finanzsektor ?"

nun, die Rally im Finanzsektor war m.E. eine klare Short-Squeeze. Auch in anderen Sektoren wurde gerade vor dem Hintergrund der Finanzkrise auf fallende Kurse spekuliert. Wieso sollten dann nach Deiner Ansicht bei einer Entspannung der Situation im Finanzsektor die Kurse in den anderen Sektoren fallen? Auch in diesen Sektoren gab es natürlich Bargain-Hunting und Short-Eindeckungen. Was war somit ungewöhnlich daran, dass es auch in anderen Sektoren eine (temporäre) Erholung nach den Verlusten der vorangegangen Tage gab?

"Warum wird der Dollar nicht schwächer, wenn doch die US Staatsverschuldung, wie ich gelesen habe um wohl mindestens 200 Milliarden zunimmt ?"

einige Dinge wirkten hier m.E:

- eine massive Liquidation technischer Trendfolger, die zuvor aggressiv auf einen weiteren Euro Anstieg gewettet haben und long im Rohstoffbereich waren. Nicht auszuschließen, dass einige dieser Trendfolger sich nun so umgekehrt in Gegenrichtung positionieren bzw bereits positioniert haben und somit für Abgabedruck im EUR sorgten.

- die Erwartung einer Konjunkturabschwächung in Europa, zumindest spielten das Marktteilnehmer in letzter Zeit, und somit mittelfristig das Absinken der Zinsdifferenz zum USD

- ohnehin war der EUR relativ zum USD überbewertet, unter Kaufkraftgesichtspunkten (aus Verbrauchersicht)

"Kann mir vielleicht jemand Informationen geben ?"

in der Regel wirkt immer eine Kombination von Gründen, zu der man jedoch nur Vermutungen anstellen kann.

Hallo,

ich las gerade in der NZZ:

"Künfig werde China seine Devisenreserven wohl breiter streuen und den Anteil an Dollar Investements zurückfahren. Bisher hat China 60 % seiner Devisenbestände in Dollar Wertpapieren angelegt."

Und weiter:

"447,5 Mrd Dollar, ein Fünftel der gesamten Devisenbestände, seien in Schuldverschreibungen von staatsnahen US-Emittenten wie Fannie Mae und Freddie Mac investiert". Ende Zitat.

Wer es lesen möchte, es steht heute auf Seite 32.

Die Kurse von Fannie und Freddie sind seit letztem Jahr um 99 % (!) zurückgegangen.

Grüsse
Marzell

@ dhp05 [#10]

"Aber zu F und F:
Den beiden war/ist doch die praktische Abwicklung der Geschäfte im Rahmen eines Subventionsprogramms des amerikanischen Staates zugewiesen."

Ganz richtig, das war übrigens vor 9 Jahren in der NYT zu lesen:
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Hier wußte man seit 2005 von möglichen Problemen.
Es erhärtet sich wohl der Anschein, als seien die Unternehmen bewußt in eine Blase geführt worden.

AP IMPACT: Mortgage firm arranged stealth campaign
Buzz Up Send
Email IM Share
Digg Facebook Newsvine del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Pete Yost, Associated Press Writer – 39 mins agoRelated Quotes Symbol Price Change
FNM 0.95 -0.04
FRE 1.15 -0.01
^GSPC 940.55 -5.88

WASHINGTON – Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.

In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.

Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.

In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.

"If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole," the senators wrote in a letter that proved prescient.

Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.

In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress.

McCain, R-Ariz., was not a target of the DCI campaign. He signed Hagel's letter and three weeks later signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill.

By the time McCain did so, however, DCI's effort had gone on for nine months and was on its way toward killing the bill.

In recent days, McCain has said Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were "one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire" of the global credit crisis. McCain has accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of taking advice from former executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and failing to see that the companies were heading for a meltdown.

McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, or his lobbying firm has taken more than $2 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dating to 2000.

Obama has received $120,349 in political donations from employees of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae; McCain $21,550.

The Republican senators targeted by DCI began hearing from prominent constituents and financial contributors, all urging the defeat of Hagel's bill because it might harm the housing boom. The effort generated newspaper articles and radio and TV appearances by participants who spoke out against the measure.

Inside Freddie Mac headquarters in 2005, the few dozen people who knew what DCI was doing referred to the initiative as "the stealth lobbying campaign," according to three people familiar with the drive.

They spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying they fear retaliation if their names were disclosed.

Freddie Mac executive Hollis McLoughlin oversaw DCI's drive, according to the three people.

"Hollis's goal was not to have any Freddie Mac fingerprints on this project and DCI became the hidden hand behind the effort," one of the three people told the AP.

Before 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Democratic strongholds. After 2004, Republicans ran their political operations. McLoughlin, who joined Freddie Mac in 2004 as chief of staff, has given $32,250 to Republican candidates over the years, including $2,800 to McCain, and has given none to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.

On Friday night, Hagel's chief of staff, Mike Buttry, said Hagel's legislation "was the last best chance to bring greater oversight and tighter regulation to Freddie and Fannie, and they used every means they could to defeat Sen. Hagel's legislation every step of the way."

"It is outrageous that a congressionally chartered government-sponsored enterprise would lobby against a member of Congress's bill that would strengthen the regulation and oversight of that institution," Buttry said in a statement. "America has paid an extremely high price for the reckless, and possibly criminal, actions of the leadership at Freddie and Fannie."

Nine of the 17 targeted Republican senators did not sign Hagel's letter: Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Christopher "Kit" Bond and Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and George Allen of Virginia. Aside from the nine, 20 other Republican senators did not sign Hagel's letter.

McConnell's office said members of leadership do not sign letters to the leader. McConnell was majority whip at the time.

Eight of the targeted senators did sign it: Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Larry Craig of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, George Voinovich of Ohio and David Vitter of Louisiana. Santorum, Crapo and Bunning were on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and had voted in favor of sending the bill to the full Senate.

On Thursday, Freddie Mac acknowledged that the company "did retain DCI to provide public affairs support at the state and local level." On Friday, DCI issued a four-sentence statement saying it complied with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations in representing Freddie Mac. Neither Freddie Mac nor DCI would say how much Goodyear's consulting firm was paid.

Freddie Mac paid DCI $10,000 a month for each of the targeted states, so the more states, the more money for DCI, according to the three people familiar with the program. In addition, Freddie Mac paid DCI a group retainer of $40,000 a month plus $20,000 a month for each regional manager handling the project, the three people said.

Last month, the concerns of the 26 Republican senators who signed Hagel's bill became a reality when the government seized control of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae amid their near financial collapse. Federal prosecutors are investigating accounting, disclosure and corporate governance issues at both companies, which own or guarantee more than $5 trillion in mortgages, roughly equivalent to half of the national debt.

Freddie Mac was so pleased with DCI's work that it retained the firm for other jobs, finally cutting DCI loose last month after the government takeover, according to the three people familiar with the situation.

Freddie Mac's problems began when Hagel's legislation won approval from the Senate committee.

Democrats did not like the harshest provision, which would have given a new regulator a mandate to shrink Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae by forcing them to sell off part of their portfolios. That approach, the Democrats feared, would cut into the ability of low- and moderate-income families to buy houses.

The political backdrop to the debate "was like bizarre-o-world," said the second of three people familiar with the program. "The Republicans were pro-regulation and the Democrats were against it; it was upside down."

Sen. Richard Shelby, the committee chairman at the time, underscored that in a statement Wednesday, saying that with Democrats already on their side, it was not surprising that Freddie Mac and Freddie Mae went after Republicans. "Unfortunately," said Shelby, R-Ala., "efforts then to derail reform were successful."

In a sign of bad things to come, Freddie Mac was already having serious problems in 2005. Auditors had exposed massive accounting issues, so improved regulation was one obvious remedy.

Once Freddie Mac's in-house lobbyists failed to keep Hagel's bill bottled up in the committee, McLoughlin responded by secretly hiring DCI.

DCI never filed lobbying reports with Congress about what it was doing because the firm was relying on a long-recognized gap in the disclosure law.

Federal lobbying law only requires reporting and registration when there are contacts with a legislator or staff.

"To have it stealthy, not to let people know who is behind this, in my opinion is unethical," said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University who long has taught courses about lobbying.

Goodyear is a longtime political consultant from Arizona who resigned from the Republican convention job this year after Newsweek magazine revealed he had lobbied for the repressive military junta of Myanmar.

McLoughlin, Freddie Mac's senior vice president for external relations, was assistant treasury secretary from 1989 through 1992 in the administration of President Bush's father. McLoughlin served as chief of staff to Sen. Nicholas Brady, R-N.J., in 1982 and to Rep. Millicent Fenwick, R-N.J., from 1975-79.

Seven of the 17 targeted Republican senators were in the midst of re-election campaigns in 2006, and according to one of the three people familiar with the program, Freddie Mac and DCI hoped those facing tough races would tell their Republican colleagues back in Washington that "we've got enough trouble; you're making it worse with Hagel's bill."

Five of the seven DCI targets who ran for re-election in 2006 lost, and Senate control switched to the Democrats.

A Freddie Mac e-mail on May 4, 2006 — the day before Hagel's letter — details the behind-the-scenes effort that Freddie Mac and DCI generated to hold down the number of Republicans signing Hagel's letter urging a full Senate vote. It said:

"What I'm asking is that DCI get a few of their key well-connected constituents from each state to call in to the DC office of their Republican senators and speak to the (legislative director) or (chief of staff) and urge them not to sign the letter. The following could be used as a short script."

The proposed script read: "We can all agree that Fannie's and Freddie's regulator should be strengthened but unfortunately, S.190 goes too far and could potentially have damaging effects on Georgia's — example — home buyers."

According to the third of the three people familiar with the program, "DCI was asked to help keep senators from signing; it was a big part of their effort that year and it was viewed as a success since many DCI targets did not sign the letter."

DCI's progress after the first four months of the campaign was spelled out in a 19-page document dated Dec. 12, 2005, and titled, "Freddie Mac Field Program State by State Summary Report."

A snippet of a senator-by-senator breakdown of the efforts says this about Maine's Snowe:

"Philip Harriman, former state senator, co-chair of Snowe's 2006 campaign, personal Snowe friend, major GOP donor and investment adviser, has written the senator a personal letter on this issue. Dick Morin, vice president Maine Association of Mortgage Brokers, has been in direct contact with Sen. Snowe's committee staff, has sent a letter to Snowe, and is pursuing a dozen(s) of letters from his members."

On Wednesday, Snowe's office issued a statement saying that she "literally gets hundreds of 'Dear Colleague' letters seeking support for their positions that she does not sign. Had this legislation come up for a vote in 2006, she certainly would have considered it on its merits — as she does every vote. Just last July, she voted for the housing bill that established a new, stronger regulator."

Rosario Marin, a staunch McCain supporter who spoke at the GOP convention in September, was among the people DCI used in carrying out the campaign.

Marin, the U.S. treasurer during the first term of the Bush administration, went to Missouri and to Montana, Burns' state, where she spoke out against Hagel's bill.

At the time, Burns, who ended up losing his re-election bid, was caught up in a Washington influence peddling scandal centering on disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Marin's visit triggered a local newspaper story in which the reporter contacted Burns' staff for comment. Burns' office told the newspaper the senator was not supportive of the latest version of Hagel's bill.

On Wednesday, Marin, now state consumer services secretary in California, issued a statement confirming that her trips to Missouri and Montana were in her capacity as a DCI consultant.

The December 2005 summary listing 17 Republican targets outlines the inroads DCI was making.

"On day one" of the effort, Sen. George Allen of Virginia had not addressed Hagel's bill and his legislative aide for housing was not assigned to it, the report said.

"Today," the report added, "the senator is aware of the issue and ... at the moment he is undecided." Allen's deputy chief of staff "has said that the senator will take into consideration before he decides that Freddie Mac is located in Virginia and is one of the largest Virginia employers."

"Grasstops/opinion leaders James Todd, president, the Peterson Companies wrote to both senators," the report added. "Milt Peterson, the founder and CEO of the company is one of Allen's major donors."

In the end, Allen, who lost his bid for re-election in 2006, did not sign Hagel's letter.

___

On the Net:

DCI: http://www.dcigroup.com/

Freddie Mac: http://www.freddiemac.com/

Fannie Mae: http://www.fanniemae.com

Source:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081019/ap_on_bi_ge/the_influence_game_housing

FBI fehlen Ermittler gegen Wirtschaftskriminelle

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, FAZ (19.10.08) - Der amerikanischen Bundespolizei FBI fehlen einem Bericht der „New York Times“ zufolge Ermittler zur Bekämpfung der Wirtschaftskriminalität. Wie das Blatt in seiner Sonntags-Ausgabe unter Berufung auf heutige und frühere FBI-Beamte berichtet, wurden nach den Terroranschlägen vom 11. September 2001 mehr als 1800 Beamte aus Abteilungen zur Kriminalitätsbekämpfung abgezogen und für die Terrorismusabwehr sowie für geheimdienstliche Aufgaben eingesetzt. Dies sei fast ein Drittel aller Agenten in den Dezernaten zur Kriminalitätsbekämpfung gewesen.

(Quelle und ausführlich weiter lesen: http://www.faz.net/s/Rub58241E4DF1B149538ABC24D0E82A6266/Doc~E13167C74B84949C189CF0370CEC72EE8~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html?rss_aktuell)