Department of Housing and Urban Development is leading an Administration-wide effort to bring new tools and resources to would-be homeowners
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 13, 2003
National Homeownership Month, 2003 By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Homeownership is more than just a symbol of the American Dream; it is an important part of our way of life. Core American values of individuality, thrift, responsibility, and self-reliance are embodied in homeownership. I am committed to helping more families know the security and sense of pride that comes with owning a home.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is leading an Administration-wide effort to bring new tools and resources to would-be homeowners. We are providing financial assistance to qualified families through the American Dream Downpayment Fund, funding educational programs that stress financial literacy, and offering a compassionate hand to those who dream of moving from subsidized housing into homeownership. And through the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program, my Administration partners with nonprofit organizations that offer homeownership oppor-tunities to families willing to contribute their skills and labor to help build a home of their own. We are also proposing ways to make it easier to shop for a mortgage and to make mortgages available to more families through the Federal Housing Administration.
Today, the United States is fortunate in that our homeownership rate is at an all-time high, and low interest rates continue to encourage millions of Americans to become first-time homeowners. Although a record number of Americans own their own homes, we continue to see a gap between the homeowner-ship rates of minorities and nonminorities. By a significant margin, minority families are less likely to own their own homes. Therefore, I have called upon the entire housing industry to join with my Administration to expand minority homeownership across the Nation. Our goal is to help at least 5.5 million minority families become homeowners by the end of this decade, and our Blueprint for the American Dream Partnership is taking bold steps to make this a reality.
Across our Nation, every citizen, regardless of race, creed, color, or place of birth, should have the opportunity to become a homeowner. Homeownership represents a pathway to pride and prosperity for many families, encourages values of responsibility and sacrifice, creates stability for neighborhoods and communities, and generates economic growth that helps strengthen the entire Nation.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2003 as National Homeownership Month. I call upon the people of the United States to join me in recognizing the importance of offering every American the opportunity to realize their dream of homeownership and to help work towards making that dream a reality.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-seventh.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Showing posts with label Freddie Mac. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freddie Mac. Show all posts
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Treasury Nominee Paulson Has Supported China's Rise to Power...
President George W. Bush nominated Henry Paulson as Treasury Secretary. Paulson is chairman and CEO of the Goldman Sachs Group, an investment banking firm that counts the Beijing government and several state-owned Chinese firms as clients.
President Bush has shown that he doesn’t understand how national security and international economics interact ...
The close relationship raises serious doubts about whether Paulson can do his job without a paralyzing conflict of interest. Treasury is supposed to be pressuring China to halt its currency manipulation, which gives Chinese-based firms a competitive advantage in trade against U.S.-based companies. Goldman Sachs’ clients benefit from Beijing’s policy and do not want currency reform. The Treasury Department also chairs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is supposed to police foreign acquisitions of American technology or industrial assets which have security implications. Will Paulson act to block Chinese attempts to use its massive dollar reserves (earned from its trade surplus) to buy strategic American assets, given the encouragement he has given Beijing to do this? Will Paulson use his position in the Cabinet to urge continued appeasement of China around the world to protect his business connections? Remember that it is standard Beijing practice to require firms to lobby in Washington on its behalf as the price of doing business in China. Just how responsive will Paulson be?
Goldman Sachs works to facilitate foreign investment in Chinese industry, and thus to help Beijing become a more formidable rival to the United States. It claims to have helped raise more international equity for Chinese firms (including state enterprises) than any other international investment bank, and to be the only international bank to have participated as a lead underwriter in every sovereign debt program of the Chinese government. Goldman Sachs is also buying for itself stakes in several Chinese banks.
Goldman Sachs has been tied to China for some time
Treasury Nominee Paulson Has Supported China's Rise to Power
William R. Hawkins
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
As required by Congress, the office of the Secretary of Defense issued its annual report on the Military Power of the People’s Republic of China on May 23. Exactly one week later, President George W. Bush nominated Henry Paulson as Treasury Secretary. Paulson is chairman and CEO of the Goldman Sachs Group, an investment banking firm that counts the Beijing government and several state-owned Chinese firms as clients. Goldman Sachs is not just in bed with the Beijing regime, they’ve married and raised a family. And predictably, once again, President Bush has shown that he doesn’t understand how national security and international economics interact – nor can he spot a conflict of interest staring him in the face.
Media coverage of the Pentagon report has focused on the growth of China’s air, missile and naval forces; the modernization of its army; and the development of new weapon systems. The military buildup is in support of a foreign policy at odds with the security interests of the United States on every front. Page 9 sums this up nicely, “China continues to dispute sovereignty claims in the South and East China Seas and is preparing for potential conflict over Taiwan. Chinese companies continue to play a negative role in the proliferation of advanced military capabilities, and continue to supply countries such as Iran with critical military technologies. Beijing has refused to join the Proliferation Security Initiative. China has not fully leveraged its close ties with Pyongyang to stem North Korean nuclear ambitions, and continues to maintain or strengthen political, economic, and military ties with Iran, Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Venezuela, undercutting international efforts to influence those states.”
What has not gotten the attention it deserves is the role American business plays in supporting Beijing rise to power in world affairs. The Pentagon report makes clear that “the extraordinary economic success of the PRC is a central factor in its emergence as a regional and global power, and is the basis for China’s increasingly capable military. The Party has also relied on the successful transformation of the economy as a primary source of legitimacy.” The report cites a January 2005 interview with Lieutenant General Liu Yazhou, currently Deputy Political Commissar of the PLA Air Force. According to the Chinese general, “When a nation grows strong enough, it practices hegemony. The sole purpose of power is to pursue even greater power . . .when a country begins to rise, it should first set itself in an invincible position.”
Though the conflict between American and Chinese interests are global, attention has tended to focus on Beijing’s desire to capture Taiwan, the “renegade province, which has been a self-governing country for over half a century. In the 2005 Pentagon report, General Wen Zongren, Political Commissar of the elite PLA Academy of Military Science, is quoted as saying that taking control of Taiwan is of “far reaching significance to breaking international forces’ blockade against China’s maritime security. . . . [T]o rise suddenly, China must pass through oceans and go out of the oceans in its future development.” The new 2006 report notes that “China’s air and naval force improvements are scoped for operations beyond Taiwan....[China] has an expressed interest in developing capabilities that could hold at risk maritime targets out to the ‘second island chain’ some 1,000 miles from the Chinese coast. Over the long term, improvements in China’s C4ISR, including spacebased and over-the-horizon sensors, could enable Beijing to identify, track and target foreign military activities deep into the western Pacific.”
Where will China get the high-technology needed to make these improvements in weapon systems that can menace the region? The answer is clear: From foreign companies eager to make a profit by betting on China’s rise to great power status. “Most of China’s defense industries rely on foreign procurement and development. The exceptions are few, e.g., ballistic missiles and some space and aviation programs,” states the report, which continues, “foreign investment in physical plant, management, technical, and marketing expertise in some basic manufacturing sectors, such as strategic metals and electronics, has increased the prospect for spin-off with military and dual-use industries. Joint ventures in China also now manufacture semiconductors and integrated circuits used in military computers, communications and electronic warfare equipment, and missile guidance and radar systems.” Chapter 4, dealing with the resources available to Beijing, opens with a quote from Chinese President Hu Jintao, “We need to build an innovative system of defense science and technology... to create a good structure under which military and civilian high technologies are shared and mutually transferable.”
Hu was undoubtedly happy to hear of Paulson’s nomination. Goldman Sachs works to facilitate foreign investment in Chinese industry, and thus to help Beijing become a more formidable rival to the United States. It claims to have helped raise more international equity for Chinese firms (including state enterprises) than any other international investment bank, and to be the only international bank to have participated as a lead underwriter in every sovereign debt program of the Chinese government. Goldman Sachs is also buying for itself stakes in several Chinese banks.Paulson attended the Fortune Global Forum held in Beijing last year. Materials put out by the Forum stated that its focus was “how multinationals can tap into the enormous potential of China.” The October 4, 2005 issue of Fortune magazine was devoted entirely to China, in which it was reported that for Fortune 500 executives, China is “absolutely center stage right now.” According to the May, 17, 2005 issue of the Chinese regime’s newspaper The People’s Daily, Paulson told the Forum, “one thing which is critical to China now...is to move the economy from low-cost manufacturing to high-tech value-added” production.
Goldman Sachs has been tied to China for some time. When John Thornton stepped down as president in 2003, he became a professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing and director of its Global Leadership Program. Thornton endowed the Brookings Institution in Washington with the funds to start a new China Initiative program in 2004. The mission of the Initiative is to “explore the dynamics of China's transformation and emergence as a political and economic power and the implications for the United States, China, the East Asian region, and the world.” The output of this program has been almost entirely concerned with how to keep trade and investment flowing, while dismissing any concern about trade deficits or geopolitical rivalry.
The close relationship raises serious doubts about whether Paulson can do his job without a paralyzing conflict of interest. Treasury is supposed to be pressuring China to halt its currency manipulation, which gives Chinese-based firms a competitive advantage in trade against U.S.-based companies. Goldman Sachs’ clients benefit from Beijing’s policy and do not want currency reform. The Treasury Department also chairs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is supposed to police foreign acquisitions of American technology or industrial assets which have security implications. Will Paulson act to block Chinese attempts to use its massive dollar reserves (earned from its trade surplus) to buy strategic American assets, given the encouragement he has given Beijing to do this? Will Paulson use his position in the Cabinet to urge continued appeasement of China around the world to protect his business connections? Remember that it is standard Beijing practice to require firms to lobby in Washington on its behalf as the price of doing business in China. Just how responsive will Paulson be?President Bush likes to talk about being Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States, but in nominating Paulson, he has reverted back to being nothing more than a useful tool of Corporate America. While the Pentagon redeploys naval, air and ground units in the Pacific to meet the rising Chinese threat, Bush and Paulson’s country club friends are helping to expand Beijing’s capabilities in ways that put these American forces – and lives – at risk. It is hard to imagine what the President was thinking or how he could have made a worse choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.
President Bush has shown that he doesn’t understand how national security and international economics interact ...
The close relationship raises serious doubts about whether Paulson can do his job without a paralyzing conflict of interest. Treasury is supposed to be pressuring China to halt its currency manipulation, which gives Chinese-based firms a competitive advantage in trade against U.S.-based companies. Goldman Sachs’ clients benefit from Beijing’s policy and do not want currency reform. The Treasury Department also chairs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is supposed to police foreign acquisitions of American technology or industrial assets which have security implications. Will Paulson act to block Chinese attempts to use its massive dollar reserves (earned from its trade surplus) to buy strategic American assets, given the encouragement he has given Beijing to do this? Will Paulson use his position in the Cabinet to urge continued appeasement of China around the world to protect his business connections? Remember that it is standard Beijing practice to require firms to lobby in Washington on its behalf as the price of doing business in China. Just how responsive will Paulson be?
Goldman Sachs works to facilitate foreign investment in Chinese industry, and thus to help Beijing become a more formidable rival to the United States. It claims to have helped raise more international equity for Chinese firms (including state enterprises) than any other international investment bank, and to be the only international bank to have participated as a lead underwriter in every sovereign debt program of the Chinese government. Goldman Sachs is also buying for itself stakes in several Chinese banks.
Goldman Sachs has been tied to China for some time
Treasury Nominee Paulson Has Supported China's Rise to Power
William R. Hawkins
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
As required by Congress, the office of the Secretary of Defense issued its annual report on the Military Power of the People’s Republic of China on May 23. Exactly one week later, President George W. Bush nominated Henry Paulson as Treasury Secretary. Paulson is chairman and CEO of the Goldman Sachs Group, an investment banking firm that counts the Beijing government and several state-owned Chinese firms as clients. Goldman Sachs is not just in bed with the Beijing regime, they’ve married and raised a family. And predictably, once again, President Bush has shown that he doesn’t understand how national security and international economics interact – nor can he spot a conflict of interest staring him in the face.
Media coverage of the Pentagon report has focused on the growth of China’s air, missile and naval forces; the modernization of its army; and the development of new weapon systems. The military buildup is in support of a foreign policy at odds with the security interests of the United States on every front. Page 9 sums this up nicely, “China continues to dispute sovereignty claims in the South and East China Seas and is preparing for potential conflict over Taiwan. Chinese companies continue to play a negative role in the proliferation of advanced military capabilities, and continue to supply countries such as Iran with critical military technologies. Beijing has refused to join the Proliferation Security Initiative. China has not fully leveraged its close ties with Pyongyang to stem North Korean nuclear ambitions, and continues to maintain or strengthen political, economic, and military ties with Iran, Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Venezuela, undercutting international efforts to influence those states.”
What has not gotten the attention it deserves is the role American business plays in supporting Beijing rise to power in world affairs. The Pentagon report makes clear that “the extraordinary economic success of the PRC is a central factor in its emergence as a regional and global power, and is the basis for China’s increasingly capable military. The Party has also relied on the successful transformation of the economy as a primary source of legitimacy.” The report cites a January 2005 interview with Lieutenant General Liu Yazhou, currently Deputy Political Commissar of the PLA Air Force. According to the Chinese general, “When a nation grows strong enough, it practices hegemony. The sole purpose of power is to pursue even greater power . . .when a country begins to rise, it should first set itself in an invincible position.”
Though the conflict between American and Chinese interests are global, attention has tended to focus on Beijing’s desire to capture Taiwan, the “renegade province, which has been a self-governing country for over half a century. In the 2005 Pentagon report, General Wen Zongren, Political Commissar of the elite PLA Academy of Military Science, is quoted as saying that taking control of Taiwan is of “far reaching significance to breaking international forces’ blockade against China’s maritime security. . . . [T]o rise suddenly, China must pass through oceans and go out of the oceans in its future development.” The new 2006 report notes that “China’s air and naval force improvements are scoped for operations beyond Taiwan....[China] has an expressed interest in developing capabilities that could hold at risk maritime targets out to the ‘second island chain’ some 1,000 miles from the Chinese coast. Over the long term, improvements in China’s C4ISR, including spacebased and over-the-horizon sensors, could enable Beijing to identify, track and target foreign military activities deep into the western Pacific.”
Where will China get the high-technology needed to make these improvements in weapon systems that can menace the region? The answer is clear: From foreign companies eager to make a profit by betting on China’s rise to great power status. “Most of China’s defense industries rely on foreign procurement and development. The exceptions are few, e.g., ballistic missiles and some space and aviation programs,” states the report, which continues, “foreign investment in physical plant, management, technical, and marketing expertise in some basic manufacturing sectors, such as strategic metals and electronics, has increased the prospect for spin-off with military and dual-use industries. Joint ventures in China also now manufacture semiconductors and integrated circuits used in military computers, communications and electronic warfare equipment, and missile guidance and radar systems.” Chapter 4, dealing with the resources available to Beijing, opens with a quote from Chinese President Hu Jintao, “We need to build an innovative system of defense science and technology... to create a good structure under which military and civilian high technologies are shared and mutually transferable.”
Hu was undoubtedly happy to hear of Paulson’s nomination. Goldman Sachs works to facilitate foreign investment in Chinese industry, and thus to help Beijing become a more formidable rival to the United States. It claims to have helped raise more international equity for Chinese firms (including state enterprises) than any other international investment bank, and to be the only international bank to have participated as a lead underwriter in every sovereign debt program of the Chinese government. Goldman Sachs is also buying for itself stakes in several Chinese banks.Paulson attended the Fortune Global Forum held in Beijing last year. Materials put out by the Forum stated that its focus was “how multinationals can tap into the enormous potential of China.” The October 4, 2005 issue of Fortune magazine was devoted entirely to China, in which it was reported that for Fortune 500 executives, China is “absolutely center stage right now.” According to the May, 17, 2005 issue of the Chinese regime’s newspaper The People’s Daily, Paulson told the Forum, “one thing which is critical to China now...is to move the economy from low-cost manufacturing to high-tech value-added” production.
Goldman Sachs has been tied to China for some time. When John Thornton stepped down as president in 2003, he became a professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing and director of its Global Leadership Program. Thornton endowed the Brookings Institution in Washington with the funds to start a new China Initiative program in 2004. The mission of the Initiative is to “explore the dynamics of China's transformation and emergence as a political and economic power and the implications for the United States, China, the East Asian region, and the world.” The output of this program has been almost entirely concerned with how to keep trade and investment flowing, while dismissing any concern about trade deficits or geopolitical rivalry.
The close relationship raises serious doubts about whether Paulson can do his job without a paralyzing conflict of interest. Treasury is supposed to be pressuring China to halt its currency manipulation, which gives Chinese-based firms a competitive advantage in trade against U.S.-based companies. Goldman Sachs’ clients benefit from Beijing’s policy and do not want currency reform. The Treasury Department also chairs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is supposed to police foreign acquisitions of American technology or industrial assets which have security implications. Will Paulson act to block Chinese attempts to use its massive dollar reserves (earned from its trade surplus) to buy strategic American assets, given the encouragement he has given Beijing to do this? Will Paulson use his position in the Cabinet to urge continued appeasement of China around the world to protect his business connections? Remember that it is standard Beijing practice to require firms to lobby in Washington on its behalf as the price of doing business in China. Just how responsive will Paulson be?President Bush likes to talk about being Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States, but in nominating Paulson, he has reverted back to being nothing more than a useful tool of Corporate America. While the Pentagon redeploys naval, air and ground units in the Pacific to meet the rising Chinese threat, Bush and Paulson’s country club friends are helping to expand Beijing’s capabilities in ways that put these American forces – and lives – at risk. It is hard to imagine what the President was thinking or how he could have made a worse choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
"...nation's largest private fraud case ..."
"...chief executive's criminal culpability in the nation's largest private fraud case depended..."
Maybe a look into the 'private' fraudulent financing company will reveal all the PUBLICLY TRADED companies 'DUMPING' their losing entities into NCFE!
Hint: James K Happ
Attorneys battle it out over Poulsen tapes
Alleged bribery of National Century exec at issue
Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:17 AM
By Jodi Andes
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Lance K. Poulsen's recorded conversations were offered as evidence yesterday in his trial in connection with the collapse of his company, National Century Financial Enterprises.
But whether they proved the former chief executive's criminal culpability in the nation's largest private fraud case depended on who was asking the questions.
Peter Anderson, one of Poulsen's defense attorneys, said that the tapes showed Poulsen wasn't trying to bribe Sherry Gibson, a former vice president of the health-care lender, to forget certain facts when testifying against Poulsen.
She's the government's key witness in the fraud case.
Prosecutor Leo Wise used his questioning of FBI Special Agent Jeff Williams to try to show otherwise.
Wise said Poulsen's use of coded language, evident on tapes made by the FBI, along with the use of a middle man in conversations with Gibson and attempts to use phone lines thought to be secure show that Poulsen was trying to conceal the bribe.
Poulsen is being tried in U.S. District Court in Columbus on fraud charges tied to the company's implosion. When Dublin-based National Century filed for bankruptcy in November 2002, investors lost nearly $2 billion.
Poulsen's taped conversations with his friend Karl A. Demmler show that Poulsen believed Gibson got bad advice from her attorney when he advised her to plead guilty in connection with her role in the company's collapse, Anderson said.
In addition, Poulsen never met with Gibson or gave her any money, Anderson noted. Poulsen could be heard on the tape telling Demmler that he didn't want Gibson to lie, the defense attorney pointed out.
Poulsen's own taped statements show he did want Gibson to forget how she plugged investor reports with false numbers, the FBI agent testified.
In return, the National Century founder said he would also loan her money, "but of course that loan never needs to be repaid," Williams said, quoting Poulsen.
Furthermore, Poulsen did tell his attorney that he wanted to help Gibson find a new lawyer, but it's clear Poulsen didn't tell his own attorney everything he was offering to do for Gibson, Williams said.
"Only the three amigos know about the three amigos," Poulsen said on the tapes referring to himself, Demmler and Gibson.
Both Poulsen and Demmler were convicted in March of witness tampering and obstruction of justice in connection with their contacts with Gibson. Poulsen was sentenced to 10 years in prison; Demmler has yet to be sentenced.
The federal prosecution team of Wise, Doug Squires and Kathleen McGovern are expected to rest their case today after presenting one more witness.
jandes@dispatch.com
Maybe a look into the 'private' fraudulent financing company will reveal all the PUBLICLY TRADED companies 'DUMPING' their losing entities into NCFE!
Hint: James K Happ
Attorneys battle it out over Poulsen tapes
Alleged bribery of National Century exec at issue
Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:17 AM
By Jodi Andes
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Lance K. Poulsen's recorded conversations were offered as evidence yesterday in his trial in connection with the collapse of his company, National Century Financial Enterprises.
But whether they proved the former chief executive's criminal culpability in the nation's largest private fraud case depended on who was asking the questions.
Peter Anderson, one of Poulsen's defense attorneys, said that the tapes showed Poulsen wasn't trying to bribe Sherry Gibson, a former vice president of the health-care lender, to forget certain facts when testifying against Poulsen.
She's the government's key witness in the fraud case.
Prosecutor Leo Wise used his questioning of FBI Special Agent Jeff Williams to try to show otherwise.
Wise said Poulsen's use of coded language, evident on tapes made by the FBI, along with the use of a middle man in conversations with Gibson and attempts to use phone lines thought to be secure show that Poulsen was trying to conceal the bribe.
Poulsen is being tried in U.S. District Court in Columbus on fraud charges tied to the company's implosion. When Dublin-based National Century filed for bankruptcy in November 2002, investors lost nearly $2 billion.
Poulsen's taped conversations with his friend Karl A. Demmler show that Poulsen believed Gibson got bad advice from her attorney when he advised her to plead guilty in connection with her role in the company's collapse, Anderson said.
In addition, Poulsen never met with Gibson or gave her any money, Anderson noted. Poulsen could be heard on the tape telling Demmler that he didn't want Gibson to lie, the defense attorney pointed out.
Poulsen's own taped statements show he did want Gibson to forget how she plugged investor reports with false numbers, the FBI agent testified.
In return, the National Century founder said he would also loan her money, "but of course that loan never needs to be repaid," Williams said, quoting Poulsen.
Furthermore, Poulsen did tell his attorney that he wanted to help Gibson find a new lawyer, but it's clear Poulsen didn't tell his own attorney everything he was offering to do for Gibson, Williams said.
"Only the three amigos know about the three amigos," Poulsen said on the tapes referring to himself, Demmler and Gibson.
Both Poulsen and Demmler were convicted in March of witness tampering and obstruction of justice in connection with their contacts with Gibson. Poulsen was sentenced to 10 years in prison; Demmler has yet to be sentenced.
The federal prosecution team of Wise, Doug Squires and Kathleen McGovern are expected to rest their case today after presenting one more witness.
jandes@dispatch.com
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
What 'NEW TOOLS and RESOUCES' is the President suggesting?
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 13, 2003
National Homeownership Month, 2003
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Homeownership is more than just a symbol of the American Dream; it is an important part of our way of life. Core American values of individuality, thrift, responsibility, and self-reliance are embodied in homeownership. I am committed to helping more families know the security and sense of pride that comes with owning a home.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is leading an Administration-wide effort to bring new tools and resources to would-be homeowners. We are providing financial assistance to qualified families through the American Dream Downpayment Fund, funding educational programs that stress financial literacy, and offering a compassionate hand to those who dream of moving from subsidized housing into homeownership. And through the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program, my Administration partners with nonprofit organizations that offer homeownership oppor-tunities to families willing to contribute their skills and labor to help build a home of their own. We are also proposing ways to make it easier to shop for a mortgage and to make mortgages available to more families through the Federal Housing Administration.
Today, the United States is fortunate in that our homeownership rate is at an all-time high, and low interest rates continue to encourage millions of Americans to become first-time homeowners. Although a record number of Americans own their own homes, we continue to see a gap between the homeowner-ship rates of minorities and nonminorities. By a significant margin, minority families are less likely to own their own homes. Therefore, I have called upon the entire housing industry to join with my Administration to expand minority homeownership across the Nation. Our goal is to help at least 5.5 million minority families become homeowners by the end of this decade, and our Blueprint for the American Dream Partnership is taking bold steps to make this a reality.
Across our Nation, every citizen, regardless of race, creed, color, or place of birth, should have the opportunity to become a homeowner. Homeownership represents a pathway to pride and prosperity for many families, encourages values of responsibility and sacrifice, creates stability for neighborhoods and communities, and generates economic growth that helps strengthen the entire Nation.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2003 as National Homeownership Month. I call upon the people of the United States to join me in recognizing the importance of offering every American the opportunity to realize their dream of homeownership and to help work towards making that dream a reality.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-seventh.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Office of the Press Secretary
June 13, 2003
National Homeownership Month, 2003
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Homeownership is more than just a symbol of the American Dream; it is an important part of our way of life. Core American values of individuality, thrift, responsibility, and self-reliance are embodied in homeownership. I am committed to helping more families know the security and sense of pride that comes with owning a home.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is leading an Administration-wide effort to bring new tools and resources to would-be homeowners. We are providing financial assistance to qualified families through the American Dream Downpayment Fund, funding educational programs that stress financial literacy, and offering a compassionate hand to those who dream of moving from subsidized housing into homeownership. And through the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program, my Administration partners with nonprofit organizations that offer homeownership oppor-tunities to families willing to contribute their skills and labor to help build a home of their own. We are also proposing ways to make it easier to shop for a mortgage and to make mortgages available to more families through the Federal Housing Administration.
Today, the United States is fortunate in that our homeownership rate is at an all-time high, and low interest rates continue to encourage millions of Americans to become first-time homeowners. Although a record number of Americans own their own homes, we continue to see a gap between the homeowner-ship rates of minorities and nonminorities. By a significant margin, minority families are less likely to own their own homes. Therefore, I have called upon the entire housing industry to join with my Administration to expand minority homeownership across the Nation. Our goal is to help at least 5.5 million minority families become homeowners by the end of this decade, and our Blueprint for the American Dream Partnership is taking bold steps to make this a reality.
Across our Nation, every citizen, regardless of race, creed, color, or place of birth, should have the opportunity to become a homeowner. Homeownership represents a pathway to pride and prosperity for many families, encourages values of responsibility and sacrifice, creates stability for neighborhoods and communities, and generates economic growth that helps strengthen the entire Nation.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2003 as National Homeownership Month. I call upon the people of the United States to join me in recognizing the importance of offering every American the opportunity to realize their dream of homeownership and to help work towards making that dream a reality.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-seventh.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Monday, September 15, 2008
the renowned Texas investor...Richard Rainwater
Wake up! Can;t you bigshot investigative reporters dig into this deeper?
"...firm decided to keep what is now $4.6 billion of assets on its balance sheet instead, exposing Morgan Stanley to potential losses..."
"...Morgan bought Crescent before the credit crunch hit..."
"...deal was completed in August 2007"
"A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman declined to discuss Crescent"
I bet!!
When Richard Rainwater, the renowned Texas investor, sold Crescent Real Estate Equities Co. to Morgan Stanley for $2.78 billion early last year, some Crescent shareholders complained the price was too low.
Now it looks like Morgan Stanley's shareholders are the ones who should have been griping.
Morgan Stanley, one of the largest real-estate investors among Wall Street firms, originally planned to put Crescent's office buildings, resorts, housing projects and other properties in one of the real-estate funds it manages for institutions and wealthy individuals. But the firm decided to keep what is now $4.6 billion of assets on its balance sheet instead, exposing Morgan Stanley to potential losses. The company didn't disclose the value of the assets at the time, but the overall deal was valued at $6.5 billion, including the assumption of $3.1 billion of debt.
Michael Stravato for The Wall Street Journal According to Real Estate Alert, Greenway Plaza in Houston is among the Crescent properties that Morgan Stanley is trying to sell.
The reason? Morgan bought Crescent before the credit crunch hit and commercial-real-estate values started to fall. It was also before Morgan was able to launch the fund that it hoped would own the properties. That left Morgan trying to persuade investors to buy into a fund including properties with top-of-the-market prices, something Morgan was unable to do.
A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman declined to discuss Crescent. In a securities filing, the firm cited "current market conditions, valuation, size of the investment and timing of the fund" as reasons why it held onto Crescent.
'Peak-Market Price'
"It's likely that investors didn't want those properties or Morgan Stanley couldn't distribute those properties into the fund at a price that investors were willing to pay," says Cedrik Lachance, an analyst with Green Street Advisors Inc., a Newport Beach, Calif., real-estate research and trading firm. "Investors didn't want to pay the peak-market price."
Morgan Stanley marked down the value of the Crescent properties by $150 million in its fiscal second quarter ended May 31, deepening losses for its asset-management business. Additional write-downs are likely if commercial-property values keep declining.
The Crescent deal is yet another example of the damage being done to Wall Street firms by their aggressive push into commercial real estate when money was easy and prices were rising. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. has been hammered by ill-timed investments in California land and New York City apartment buildings. Commercial banks Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp. have high exposures to deteriorating construction loans.
So far, Morgan Stanley's reported real-estate losses have been relatively small. The firm has significantly reduced the amount of commercial-real-estate debt on its balance sheet without taking the sort of painful write-downs that rivals have.
Morgan Stanley made headlines late last year when a venture led by the firm bought 11,000 house lots from home builder Lennar Corp. for $525 million, about 60% less than where Lennar carried the land on its books. While that land has likely fallen further in value, Morgan Stanley isn't at risk. The firm was able in that case to put the holdings in an investor fund, according to people familiar with the matter.
Real-estate funds, also known as opportunity funds, have become a big business on Wall Street over the past 15 years. Now more than 500 funds have been raised or are being raised from pension funds and other institutional investors, according to Real Estate Alert, a trade publication. They typically seek net returns, after management fees, of at least 10% for U.S. investors. But many of them have run into choppy waters this year because tight credit has made it very difficult to buy or sell property.
Risky Business
Investment firms without the balance sheets of large investment banks typically don't buy property for real-estate funds until the money has been raised. The benefit of buying before the money is in place is that it allows investment banks to move quickly. But they risk losing investor commitments if the property they buy becomes undesirable.
Morgan Stanley has been one of the most active real-estate fund managers. As of June 30, the New York company had $96.4 billion in real-estate assets under management, according to the firm. Morgan Stanley is about to close an approximately $1.5 billion commercial-real-estate debt fund and is in the process of raising a global real-estate fund with $10 billion in targeted equity capital, according to Real Estate Alert.
A 7% Discount
Crescent, co-founded by Mr. Rainwater and John Goff and taken public in 1994, was one of the weakest performers in the real-estate-investment-trust sector when it announced in May 2007 that it was selling itself to Morgan Stanley. The sale price represented a 7% discount to the underlying value of its real estate, analysts said at the time.
Some Crescent shareholders complained that the company could have commanded a better price by divesting itself of some resorts and other "noncore" properties and focusing on the office sector.
Since the deal was completed in August 2007, Morgan Stanley has been shedding some of the Crescent properties. It has closed the sale of about $552 million of assets, committed to selling $411 million and offered to sell an additional $1.3 billion, according to Real Capital Analytics, a research firm in New York.
Hits to Morgan Stanley
Morgan Stanley appears to have taken some financial hits on these sales.
For example, the firm sold a Denver office complex for $31.8 million in June. That property was valued at nearly $33 million a year earlier, according to Real Capital.
Among other properties Morgan Stanley is trying to unload: Greenway Plaza, a 10-building office complex in Houston. In July, the estimated value of the property was about $826 million, according to Real Estate Alert.
Crescent holders, though annoyed at the deal at first, may end up with the last laugh.
Write to Lingling Wei at lingling.wei@dowjones.com and Aaron Lucchetti at aaron.lucchetti@wsj.com
"...firm decided to keep what is now $4.6 billion of assets on its balance sheet instead, exposing Morgan Stanley to potential losses..."
"...Morgan bought Crescent before the credit crunch hit..."
"...deal was completed in August 2007"
"A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman declined to discuss Crescent"
I bet!!
When Richard Rainwater, the renowned Texas investor, sold Crescent Real Estate Equities Co. to Morgan Stanley for $2.78 billion early last year, some Crescent shareholders complained the price was too low.
Now it looks like Morgan Stanley's shareholders are the ones who should have been griping.
Morgan Stanley, one of the largest real-estate investors among Wall Street firms, originally planned to put Crescent's office buildings, resorts, housing projects and other properties in one of the real-estate funds it manages for institutions and wealthy individuals. But the firm decided to keep what is now $4.6 billion of assets on its balance sheet instead, exposing Morgan Stanley to potential losses. The company didn't disclose the value of the assets at the time, but the overall deal was valued at $6.5 billion, including the assumption of $3.1 billion of debt.
Michael Stravato for The Wall Street Journal According to Real Estate Alert, Greenway Plaza in Houston is among the Crescent properties that Morgan Stanley is trying to sell.
The reason? Morgan bought Crescent before the credit crunch hit and commercial-real-estate values started to fall. It was also before Morgan was able to launch the fund that it hoped would own the properties. That left Morgan trying to persuade investors to buy into a fund including properties with top-of-the-market prices, something Morgan was unable to do.
A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman declined to discuss Crescent. In a securities filing, the firm cited "current market conditions, valuation, size of the investment and timing of the fund" as reasons why it held onto Crescent.
'Peak-Market Price'
"It's likely that investors didn't want those properties or Morgan Stanley couldn't distribute those properties into the fund at a price that investors were willing to pay," says Cedrik Lachance, an analyst with Green Street Advisors Inc., a Newport Beach, Calif., real-estate research and trading firm. "Investors didn't want to pay the peak-market price."
Morgan Stanley marked down the value of the Crescent properties by $150 million in its fiscal second quarter ended May 31, deepening losses for its asset-management business. Additional write-downs are likely if commercial-property values keep declining.
The Crescent deal is yet another example of the damage being done to Wall Street firms by their aggressive push into commercial real estate when money was easy and prices were rising. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. has been hammered by ill-timed investments in California land and New York City apartment buildings. Commercial banks Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp. have high exposures to deteriorating construction loans.
So far, Morgan Stanley's reported real-estate losses have been relatively small. The firm has significantly reduced the amount of commercial-real-estate debt on its balance sheet without taking the sort of painful write-downs that rivals have.
Morgan Stanley made headlines late last year when a venture led by the firm bought 11,000 house lots from home builder Lennar Corp. for $525 million, about 60% less than where Lennar carried the land on its books. While that land has likely fallen further in value, Morgan Stanley isn't at risk. The firm was able in that case to put the holdings in an investor fund, according to people familiar with the matter.
Real-estate funds, also known as opportunity funds, have become a big business on Wall Street over the past 15 years. Now more than 500 funds have been raised or are being raised from pension funds and other institutional investors, according to Real Estate Alert, a trade publication. They typically seek net returns, after management fees, of at least 10% for U.S. investors. But many of them have run into choppy waters this year because tight credit has made it very difficult to buy or sell property.
Risky Business
Investment firms without the balance sheets of large investment banks typically don't buy property for real-estate funds until the money has been raised. The benefit of buying before the money is in place is that it allows investment banks to move quickly. But they risk losing investor commitments if the property they buy becomes undesirable.
Morgan Stanley has been one of the most active real-estate fund managers. As of June 30, the New York company had $96.4 billion in real-estate assets under management, according to the firm. Morgan Stanley is about to close an approximately $1.5 billion commercial-real-estate debt fund and is in the process of raising a global real-estate fund with $10 billion in targeted equity capital, according to Real Estate Alert.
A 7% Discount
Crescent, co-founded by Mr. Rainwater and John Goff and taken public in 1994, was one of the weakest performers in the real-estate-investment-trust sector when it announced in May 2007 that it was selling itself to Morgan Stanley. The sale price represented a 7% discount to the underlying value of its real estate, analysts said at the time.
Some Crescent shareholders complained that the company could have commanded a better price by divesting itself of some resorts and other "noncore" properties and focusing on the office sector.
Since the deal was completed in August 2007, Morgan Stanley has been shedding some of the Crescent properties. It has closed the sale of about $552 million of assets, committed to selling $411 million and offered to sell an additional $1.3 billion, according to Real Capital Analytics, a research firm in New York.
Hits to Morgan Stanley
Morgan Stanley appears to have taken some financial hits on these sales.
For example, the firm sold a Denver office complex for $31.8 million in June. That property was valued at nearly $33 million a year earlier, according to Real Capital.
Among other properties Morgan Stanley is trying to unload: Greenway Plaza, a 10-building office complex in Houston. In July, the estimated value of the property was about $826 million, according to Real Estate Alert.
Crescent holders, though annoyed at the deal at first, may end up with the last laugh.
Write to Lingling Wei at lingling.wei@dowjones.com and Aaron Lucchetti at aaron.lucchetti@wsj.com
Saturday, July 12, 2008
'Nation’s largest case of private-sector fraud'......
Then why isn't anyone paying attention?
National Century defendants to be sentenced in July
Monday, June 30, 2008 9:03 AM
By Jodi Andes
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Five National Century defendants will soon find out the price they will pay for their roles in the nation’s largest case of private-sector fraud.
Federal Judge Algenon L. Marbley has set sentencing dates for four defendants convicted in March and a fifth who previously pleaded guilty.
All were convicted in connection with crimes that led to the collapse of National Century Financial Enterprises.
The Dublin-based company – which bought accounts receivable from health-care providers, collected those debts and kept a percentage in return – went into bankruptcy with investors losing $1.9 billion.
The sentencing dates in U.S. District Court in Columbus are:
Donald H. Ayers, 72, 9 a.m. July 21.
Randolph H. Speer, 57, 1:30 p.m. July 21.
Roger S. Faulkenberry, 47, 9 a.m. July 22.
James E. Dierker Jr., 40, 1:30 p.m. July 22.
Jon A. Beacham, 41, 9 a.m. July 23.
Rebecca S. Parrett, 59, who disappeared while awaiting sentencing, remains on the lam.
Lance K. Poulsen, 65, National Century’s former president, is set for trial on Aug. 4.
National Century defendants to be sentenced in July
Monday, June 30, 2008 9:03 AM
By Jodi Andes
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Five National Century defendants will soon find out the price they will pay for their roles in the nation’s largest case of private-sector fraud.
Federal Judge Algenon L. Marbley has set sentencing dates for four defendants convicted in March and a fifth who previously pleaded guilty.
All were convicted in connection with crimes that led to the collapse of National Century Financial Enterprises.
The Dublin-based company – which bought accounts receivable from health-care providers, collected those debts and kept a percentage in return – went into bankruptcy with investors losing $1.9 billion.
The sentencing dates in U.S. District Court in Columbus are:
Donald H. Ayers, 72, 9 a.m. July 21.
Randolph H. Speer, 57, 1:30 p.m. July 21.
Roger S. Faulkenberry, 47, 9 a.m. July 22.
James E. Dierker Jr., 40, 1:30 p.m. July 22.
Jon A. Beacham, 41, 9 a.m. July 23.
Rebecca S. Parrett, 59, who disappeared while awaiting sentencing, remains on the lam.
Lance K. Poulsen, 65, National Century’s former president, is set for trial on Aug. 4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
