It's more like the coming together of pieces of a puzzle that have eluded us for too long.
By the way, Occupy Wall Street, if you're listening, and I hope you are, and you're still floundering (which I know you are) without a cause that anybody can really wrap their heads around, drop your drums, chants, and wanderings, and make the coming together of this puzzle what you're protesting.
And make what could result what you are demanding.
Because, really, this could be the mother lode.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is accusing six former executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of playing down the risk to investors of their firms' aggressive fast-forward into subprime mortgages... which caused them to implode spectacularly.
Two separate civil suits, filed last Friday, allege that the executives "knowingly misled investors" who owned shares in the companies and were thus deprived of critical information against which meaningful investment decisions are generally made.
The two wards, currently under U.S. conservatorship (life support attended by a wet-nurse), were themselves spared being sued, on account of their signing civil non-prosecution agreements and promising to cooperate and not dispute allegations (and also not have to admit nor deny wrongdoing). Yet the SEC is seeking financial penalties, disgorgement, and an order barring guilty parties from serving as officers or directors of any public companies in the future against the implicated executives.
The SEC faces an uphill battle based on one word - "subprime."
The problem is, subprime has never been legally defined.
You know what it means, I know what it means, everybody knows what it means, without knowing its exact definition. But if there's no definition of subprime, defense lawyers will counter that it's not possible to sue based on a standard that has never been defined.
How about we compare mortgages to cars and subprime to clunkers. If you're on my used car lot and I offer you two cars at the same price and don't tell you one is a clunker, is that fair? You wouldn't need me to define "clunker." If I said one was a clunker, you would simply choose the other car; after all, it's the same price.
There is a difference, there's a big difference.
Over on the Fannie and Freddie lots between 2006 and 2007, they were loading up on clunkers and not telling anyone what they were stocking. In fact, they were saying things like, "basically (we) have no subprime exposure" in the single-family realm.
One of the reasons they were loading up on subprime was because Wall Street banks were eating their lunch by buying up subprime loans, packaging them, and selling them to investors hand over fist, and Fannie and Freddie wanted in on that very lucrative business. It's not that they hadn't dabbled in subprime before; they had. But as they saw stresses in the marketplace on the better mortgages in their portfolios, they still loaded up on far weaker credits; also known in the business as SUBPRIME.
So what's next?