Latest Docs Reinforces Case That Sweep Was Long Contemplated

Latest Docs Reinforces Case That Sweep Was Long Contemplated

By Investors Unite

Not surprisingly, every time a document related to the government’s Net Worth Sweep of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s revenues is unsealed, the narrative of a premeditated strategy to dismantle the institutions – in direct defiance of the law – solidifies.

Among the dozen documents unsealed on June 22 is a transcript with portions of a lengthy deposition from July 1, 2015 of Timothy Bowler, then a top Treasury official intimately connected with the decision-making process.  Bowler affirmed repeatedly that a major factor driving Treasury’s approach to the GSEs heading into the Sweep was the Administration’s policy to “wind down” the institutions. This was the central thrust of a 2011 Treasury report, he noted. Indeed, a briefing memo for then Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner for a January 6, 2012 meeting with acting Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Ed DeMarco says that FHFA and Treasury have a “shared goal . . . to provide the public and financial markets with a clear plan to wind down the Government Sponsored Enterprises over time.”

Hedge Fund Launches Jump Despite Equity Market Declines

Last year was a bumper year for hedge fund launches. According to a Hedge Fund Research report released towards the end of March, 614 new funds hit the market in 2021. That was the highest number of launches since 2017, when a record 735 new hedge funds were rolled out to investors. What’s interesting about Read More

Bowler turned back questions as to whether the rationale for the Sweep was consistent with the purpose of facilitating Fannie and Freddie’s emergence from conservatorship “to resume private operations outside of the government’s control.” This goal, of course, was spelled out in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act in establishing the conservatorship.

Bowler sought to narrow how the team at Treasury evaluated the merits of the Sweep to more technical and procedural issues. Ultimately, however, he framed the impetus for Treasury’s actions broadly as, “… protect solvency, protect system, protect taxpayer.” As for shareholders, he explained that, so long as the underlying expectation was that Fannie and Freddie would be unable to make the full ten percent dividend payment owed to Treasury, officials had no “expectation that common shareholders would receive dividends from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.”

In an exchange apparently intended to establish that the decision to enact the Sweep was brought to Secretary Treasury Geithner’s attention in May of 2012, Bowler tried to resist being pinned down. Interestingly, however, when the question arose as to whether Gene Sperling, then the head of the National Economic Council at the White House, was apprised of the Sweep at that time, Bowler was instructed to not reply. The reason, according to government counsel, was that the response could wade into the area of “presidential communications privilege.” Thus, the question of who knew what and when has been in the minds of government attorneys for quite some time.

Whatever deference can be given to Bowler in wanting questions framed with specificity, it is hard to conclude that his deposition, like others by government officials involved in these deliberations released to date, is a study in obfuscation and avoidance of providing relevant information.

Finally, it is notable that just days before the Sweep, there was high level meeting of Treasury officials as well as the CEOs of both Fannie and Freddie. Bowler characterized the Sweep as a fait accompli at that point, rather than a chance to get input from them. He said, “I don’t recall anybody saying that, asking the companies are you okay with this. I said, here’s what we’re doing, we would like your feedback, here’s the agreement that we’ve reached with FHFA as conservator, we would like your feedback on this…”

The latest documents to enter the public record come as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is deliberating a group of shareholders’ appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth’s October 2014 decision to dismiss their suit over the Sweep. What bearing these and other documents will have on Appeals Court judges’ thinking is difficult if not impossible to discern. What it does show, however, is that they want to look at the facts carefully. The more the facts can come to light and be weighed against the rights of shareholders, the better.


Updated on

No posts to display


  1. Fannie Mae, in cahoots w/bank of america, fka Countrywide, lied about modifications in regards to their ponzi scheme loans , bundled up the loans instead , but not before forging owner’s signatures and adding falsified endorsements, fabricated some assignments and then handed them over to others, such as Ditech (FKA GreenTree), who then handed the fabricated documents over to their handy dandy substitute trustee attorneys who skipped and still are skipping to the courthouses across the country and turning in their fabricated evidence to foreclose on thousands of homeowners, who were NOTHING , but bamboozled from the start. But it’s ok because evil bank of america dished out anywhere from $300-$2000 per homeowner a few years ago as their hush hush punishment. Then the games began…lies about modifications, lies about trial payments, lies about lost modification applications….all to stall and then bundle them up again with the newfound forgeries and falsifications. But it’s ok because after Fannie Mae kicks the defrauded homeowners to the curb, they’ll make up for it by selling the home to minorities or small time investors. Sorta like if a child molester rapes a child and then on the way home stops by the candy store to buy a gumball for a kid on the street. How pathetically evil! Anyone who believes the wall street bailout ended in 2008 is sadly mistaken.

Comments are closed.