Emac's Stock Watch | Fox Business
« Why the Fed is Likely to Sit Tight Today
New Details from Fed Minutes on Bear Stearns Rescue »

  • June 27, 2008 09:01 AM EDT by Elizabeth MacDonald

    The Bank of America Housing Bailout Bill

    The new housing bailout bill would let mortgage lenders off the hook for sour mortgages, as it would let the Federal Housing Administration assume the risk for these bad debts, shifting the burden to taxpayers and bond investors.

    However, two "discussion documents" about a potential housing bailout bill, both of which are stamped "confidential and proprietary" that Bank of America (BAC) authored and circulated among Congress, shows that the legislation now making its way through the corridors of Washington, DC is almost word for word what Bank of America wanted.

    And in a revealing disclosure, the Bank of America documents state that "we believe that any intervention by the federal government will be acceptable only if it is not perceived as a bail-out of the bond market."

    The first Bank of America document is dated February 11, and is entitled "Federal Homeownership Preservation Corp." The second is dated March 11, 2008, and is entitled "FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act of 2008."  

    It is not unusual for companies to weigh in on legislation affecting their industries, and elected officials have historically turned to industry insiders to craft legislation (most elected officials are lawyers, which is why we are dealing with a top-heavy, conflicted bureaucracy, but that is a discussion for another day).

    However, the first of Bank of America's "discussion" documents came within a month of its announcement that it would buy Countrywide (CFC), the nation's biggest mortgage lender by volume, for $4 bn, a deal value that's now worth about $2.8 bn, according to its terms.

    Countrywide has been accused by state attorneys general of making tens of thousands of dodgy loans that are now being put on the backs of taxpayers with the new housing bailout bill. At the same time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating Countrywide, among other regulatory bodies.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission is also investigating stock sales made by Countrywide chief executive officer Angelo Mozilo, which he has attributed to a pre-existing executive plan under securities laws (elected officials want the SEC to probe whether the bank broadened the plan so Mozilo could unload more shares. Unload bad loans onto taxpayers. Unload bad stock onto unwitting investors. You with me?)

    The Examiner's Tim Carney has been on this story, as well as the National Review. A source close to the situation disclosed the documents to me.

    The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), has helped shepherd the housing bill, and according to Douglas Weber, an analyst with the Center for Responsive Politics, has received about $107,800 in campaign contributions--nearly 50% higher than initially thought--from Bank of America's employees and political action committee, including the bank's predecessor companies, since 1989. Sen. Dodd also reportedly received "VIP" loans from the "Friends of Angelo" mortgage program at Countrywide, meaning, Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide's chief executive and chairman. The loans reportedly involved point shaves and interest rate floatdowns at closing.

    A call to Bank of America was not returned.

    The new housing bailout would help borrowers unload tens of billions of dollars worth of bad mortgages onto taxpayers. It would let borrowers get their debt forgiven and also allow them to get cheaper mortgages via refinancings at lower rates backed with federal loan guarantees.

    Bank of America's "discussion" documents are revealing. Watch how Bank of America drops certain important language between the two reports as the legislation, too, evolved.

    In the March discussion document, Bank of America says that "the program works by letting investors realize the losses on the existing mortgages" as the program takes "advantage of the Government's unique ability to provide low cost financing for the replacement mortgages."

    Although the February document says that the program's "mandate" would be to "minimize taxpayer cost," among other things, there is no further discussion of how taxpayer costs would be minimized, and the March report drops that language.

    Both reports talk about how the current securitized US mortgage market is about $2.6 tn, that about "$339 bn or 13%" of all mortgages are at "high risk of default over the next five years due to payment shock from rate reset or payment reamortization loans," with about $739 bn, or 28%, "at moderate to high risk of default over the same period."

    Both BofA reports note that it expects "$400 bn, or 43% of subprime mortgages to default in the next five years."  Neither of the reports cite Countrywide's role in approving these loans to borrowers who could not afford them.

    Here's where BofA advises Congress how to structure the legislation so it's not perceived as helping Wall Street--meaning, money managers, pension funds, endowments, insurance portfolios and money market funds around the world that bought this landfill backed by bad loans, many of them from Countrywide.

    And here's where BofA starts to ask for the taxpayer's help. As the current housing bill has it, the FHA would back adjustable rate loans that are refinanced through the program into fixed-rate loans. The FHA-backed refinancings would pay off the earlier ARMs.

    The documents state:

    "As a number of public and private individuals have suggested, the government can mitigate the social and economic costs of massive numbers of foreclosures by establishing a program with the mandate to:

    "Determine an acceptable short payoff amount based on the current appraised value of the home for eligible loans in imminent risk of default (Translation: the short payoff amount would be used to pay off the earlier ARM)."

    The document goes on to say that the FHA-backed refinancings would support new mortgages with, among other things, "current loan to value ratios less than or equal to 90%, reductions in monthly payment of at least 30%, along with certifications of willingness to pay, and a soft second mortgage that protects the government's investment in the property along with an agreement that lets the government share in future appreciation of the property."

    The documents say that to be eligible, the home must be occupied by the borrowers as their principal residence and that the borrower and lender "must certify borrower's need to refinance and ability and willingness to make payments on the replacement mortgage."

    Question: Certifications of willingness to pay. Does that include a pledge of allegiance to Countrywide? And does yet another piece of paper really stop borrowers from dumping loans back onto taxpayers?

    The documents say the program would "insure replacement mortgages through FHA," and would have them repackaged into securities backed by Ginnie Mae.

    Now which bond investor is going to buy those Ginnie Mae securities, after BofA has effectively told the government to stick it to bond investors who bought these asset-backed securities in the first place?

    The March document says: "bondholders and portfolio lenders will experience virtually the same losses as they would have without government intervention since the short payoff amount is based on the current value of the property and is economically equivalent to the value that would be recovered in a foreclosure--thus no bailout of the bond market."

    Duly noted, despite the pointed language. The program could help bond investors if it stops borrowers from going into foreclosure. Better to have bond investors get the scraps of what's left over if the program does stop foreclosures.

    The loan balance, the documents add, "must be reduced by at least 10%" and the "new loan payment must be at least 30% lower than the existing payment."

    Translation: cutting the loan to value ratio to, say, 90% from 100% means that the lender and bond servicers take the 10% hit here, they have to foot the bill for that 10% swing in the borrower's reduced risk.

    And in a revealing section entitled "high level concerns," Bank of America suggests ways to surmount "significant legal and regulatory hurdles" in the new program.

    For instance, it notes a future accounting strategy for lenders ready to dump sour loans by shoving them off the lenders' balance sheet. The move would make further use of controversial off-balance sheet vehicles, which investors have already been blindsided with in the Enron debacle and in the recent structured investment vehicles used by banks such as Citigroup to house these bad asset-backed securities that went belly-up in the credit crisis.

    The Financial Accounting Standards Board, which sets accounting rules used by publicly traded companies to book their profits and losses, are now forcing banks to wipe out these vehicles which house these mortgage-backed assets, forcing lenders to put them back on their balance sheets, wrecking important debt to capital ratios.

    Inside Mortgage Finance, a mortgage industry publication, says the new rule could force lenders to place an astonishing $5 tn worth of off-balance sheet securitized assets back on their books under a plan by accounting standard-setters to eliminate qualifying special purpose entities, or QSPEs.

    The BofA documents suggest that "although selling loans out of trusts can cause FAS 140 consolidation concerns (NOTE: see explanation of FAS 140 below), servicers can accept short payoffs without jeopardizing QSPE status."

    In the earlier February report, BofA notes that "the chief accountant of the SEC has provided an interpretation of FASB (sic) 140 that contemplates more elaborate modifications of subprime mortgage loans to address this issue in part."

    Translation: BofA is saying that the SEC may bend the rules here, as rules are being massaged right and left, given the guardrails fell off a long time ago, so what's wrong with a little more rule-bending?

    Here's the deal.

    Last summer, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services working on the housing legislation, to SEC chairman Christopher Cox. In it he asked about the potential impact of relaxing accounting rules that guide securitizations when mortgage lenders modify loans to avoid default.

    When a lender securitizes a loan, it puts them into an off balance sheet vehicle and it is not allowed to change the loan's terms.

    But as the subprime crisis went viral and lenders starting modifying loans en masse, lenders got nervous about having to take those loans back onto their books, as the rules require. The SEC has since said that lenders modify these loans if a default seems likely, without having to take those asset-backed securities back onto their balance sheets.

    Back to the BofA documents. The March document adds another "high-level" concern, that the refinancings "must be tax neutral to the borrower," and asks that the tax code as of December 2007 be amended.

    It notes too that banks that securitized these loans subject to the new program "will be focused on minimizing any liability they may have from participating in his program," but that those worries can be best addressed through industry associations such as the American Securitization Forum, to develop market guidelines."

    In a section entitled "avoiding unintended borrower behaviors" BofA notes a "concern" in the report, that the program "could encourage other borrowers to stop making their monthly payments." Question: Why didn't BofA put this issue under its section called "high level concerns"?

    BofA says that issue can be fixed by forcing borrowers in the program to give the government 10% of the appreciation of the home if it is later sold, for example, if a borrower sells a house 10 years later for $450,000, if the appraised value as of the date of entry into the program is $250,000, the borrower would then have to give the government $20,000.

    Question: Who does the borrower write the check out to? Joe or Jane Q Citizen Taxpayer?

    Furthermore, the March document drops language used in the February report that would have forced borrowers to behave more responsibly if they want to be eligible for the new housing bailout program.

    The February report suggested that possible remedies could include "reporting the existing loan as a default to credit bureaus when it is refinanced" through the program, and "making the new loan non-dischargeable in bankruptcy."

    In the end, the program, the BofA documents say, would keep "eligible borrowers in their homes," and slow the "decline in house prices by reducing the increase in unsold housing inventories."

    And slow the pain to Countrywide from its bad lending practices--while maximizing the potential pain to taxpayers.

RSS Subscribe to Comments

Rob

I met with my lawyer last week, and she made the statement that these stories are very different from reality. I have not received one of these loans yet, nor have any of her clients. I believe this is purely politics.

June 30, 2008 at 10:52 am

John

Stop paying your taxes!

June 30, 2008 at 12:00 am

DrZoidberg

in response to 'finally' in post above: "Finally, a bill that makes cents. A bailout to rescue homeowners. Thank you" I presume that's sarcasm ? the way I look at it ? the 'home owner' was just a chip used in this poker game.

June 29, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Paul

When will the "Powers that be", relate to the "Working Man",whether "Employed or Self Employed",if he/she can afford a "Beer" fine! If they "Cannot" beat the "System" of Benefits & Taxes, why work? Their "Coffin" will be be the next thing to be taxed, made of "Wood", there is a "Surcharge",Green Policy! Please use degradable "Cardboard", treat the "Body" for early "Decomposition" and get a "Tax Rebate " Otherwise, appear human, ignore "Jobsworth"/Regulations, and enjoy your future life as a "Caring Person"! Paul

June 29, 2008 at 8:39 pm

doug marcus

as someone who put 25% down on a mortgage when i could had qualified for $40k more debt than what i wanted when i bought our house in 1994, i am pissed off that guys who played by the rules are going to have suck it up and pay for this screw-up. i'll save my anger for the lending community for later, i gotta fix what is broken now. i like ms. macdonald's fury but you tell me, what is the alternative? it may benefit boa, but maybe the saving of those homes from instant foreclosure saves me more. banking used to be so simple, so easy, until folks wanted be high fling growth companies. high growth = high risk, that works for fledging tech companies but not for the global financial backbone. the sooner we fix the mortgage meltdown, the sooner the fed can raise rates to stop inflation from getting down right nasty.

June 29, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Tammy

"Finally, a bill that makes cents. A bailout to rescue homeowners." HaHa! Moron.

June 29, 2008 at 12:32 am

Drs. Zoidberg

Like, I have no life, so I troll around and write stuff, cuz I'm bored, n'stuff!

June 29, 2008 at 12:31 am

mike miller

6/26/08press telagram ca,state sues countrywide for fraud Denied Due Process, and Discrimination WE LOST OUR HOME, FAMILY BROKE UP, I LOST MY 18 YEAR MARRIAGE Countrywide Mortgage Denied Me a Mortgage they refused to refinance Our 14 year mortgage when we complained to a Government Agency (HUD) and Ca State Attorneys Generals office. And Ameriquest Had dumped us to countrywide 2 years earlier we also were In the CA,AMERIQUEST SETTLEMENT and to top all this I AM A 100% DISABLED VETERAN WITH AND HAVE Had My G.I. Bill of Rights ( AVAILABLE ) Through all this in congress this year countrywide said they helped 80,000 homeowners avoid forecloser we have proof and docs that we were in that workout dept in2007 infact we have our ( HUD report)that countrywide told us to do called them they the phone person refered us back th the workout they never called back that was oct 2007 i have names confermation numbers . DO WE HAVE A CASE OR WHAT thank you Michael C. "rambo" Miller sr 562-547-7656 US MARINE CORPS 1967 - 1970 VIET-NAM 1968-69 1980- 1984 GRUNT IRAN HOSTAGE CRISSSSSSSS 2005 - PRESENT VETERANS FORUM TV SHOW LONG BEACH CA CHARTER CABLE

June 28, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Larry

How long will the ignorant American public tolerate these money hungry thieves in D.C.?

June 28, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Emily Nash

Countrywide is the worst to deal with when trying to get a loan modification. I had 2 loans, one with hsbc and one with countrywide. The people at loanmod.com helped me get a loan modification with both of them and I would highly recommend them to other struggling homeowners.

June 28, 2008 at 8:56 am

PC1

Yes, thank you Ms. MacDonald for shining light on this mess.......... What really tears my *ss reading this is that all the while BoA's top brass was riding it straight into the ground, they were being paid very very handsomely. If we tax payers have to bail out their mess, these SOB's - along with every attorney, broker and mortgage banker who earned fees underwriting all this mess - should have to refund their ridiculous compensation packages and fees for the past several years back to the feds as an offset. That will never happen of course with our corrupt political system, but it d*mned sure should ............ Very disgusting

June 27, 2008 at 9:18 pm

finally - a bill the makes cents

Finally, a bill that makes cents. A bailout to rescue homeowners. Thank you

June 27, 2008 at 6:15 pm

DrZoidberg

btw- anyone reading my comments I'm fully willing to accept that I could be WAY WAY off on my BoA CountryWide theories that this was all planned. I just hold onto that in the case i caught a fish with that insight. I recognize it's 'pretty far out there' - but if something isn't up, that's just bizarre any mortgage company in 2003 would all of a sudden just start giving out mortgages to - well - sheesh, they might as well have just gone out to the beaches and pooled all the homeless people together, and said - here ? you want a 500k home ? sign here. Really, it SOUNDS like that CountryWide was beyond 'loose' on who they issued mortgage products to, and I scratch my head going (ok, I really don't scratch my head, unless I've been using anything OTHER than Johnsons baby shampoo, and you know ? that is one fine product !) why would anyone do that ? and put themselves at risk. Or ? worse, why would anyone do that and sell it off wrapped up in some CDO and put someone ELSE at risk ? What I inherit in learning from MacDonald's data here is that there is some serious loss here as a result of this, and it just puzzles me that anyone could be that clumsy to expose themselves to that kind of potential loss/risk. And yet ? in the end ? The fed handouts/bailouts are perhaps just toooooo convenient for me to think the people who were that careless in issueing these loan products were NOT counting on the Fed in the end to play cleanup on aisle eleven.

June 27, 2008 at 5:16 pm

DrZoidberg

Ned ? you posted: " Thank you, Ms. McDonald, for finally shoving this week-old news onto the pages of a major media outlet. Pity that your sounding of the alarum comes only after the House approved the Bank of America’s self-serving, self-drafted bailout bill. The mainstream media proves once again that it is nothing but a cheap-seats spectator to events that takes notes, and long ago abrogated even the pretense of being a watch-dog serving the interests of the people." Are you suggesting the author here supports this bill ? Can you provide any other media resources that covered this bill more in depth ? than Ms. MacDonald ? I can't. I think this is the best coverage YET on this bill. Hey, I take shots at Fox ALL the time, don't get me wrong, after I actually READ some of Ms. MacDonald's articles - I became a fan. So far, I've not been let down. Maybe this story is later than earlier - but it's still got some GREAT data, and reporting. I never detect the typical partisan swing I often get from Fox or Fox Business so far from this author. That's just it, Ms. Macdonald isn't typical of the 'mainstream media' as I observe. I really think you've got someone who cares. Just hop over to wikipedia. This author has more journalism awards that I like to joke if someone listed them, they'd exceed the limit allowed in this text window ! Best Watchdog 'blog' I've come across this year, right here. Ok ok, I like www.innercitypress.org too.

June 27, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Robert Canella

Yes...sweetheart deal and a clean-up of Countrywide's outstanding balance sheet by us the tax payer...just doesn't get better than that? Banks never end up with foreclosures on their balance sheet...people don't loose their homes! sounds great on the surface! Sure be nice if this gets out of the blogs and into the street! ...has anyone seen the FBI lately? Where are the indictments?

June 27, 2008 at 3:51 pm

buster mabry

Let's see...Dodd gets 100K contribution from BoA...BoA buys Countrywide...CW gives Dodd a sweetheart mortgage deal...bill going thru congress to get CW (BoA) bad loans taken over by FHA (us)...hmmmm...smell more political rats here..but what's new...their goal while in Wash. is to line their pockets with OUR money...I'm just sick of it ...where do we go to have a modern day teaparty ??

June 27, 2008 at 2:24 pm

DrZoidberg

If it turns out that Bank of America knew it would be planning to get 300 billion in bailout for buying CountryWide WAY back in 2003 ? my god - that would make Fox - if proven it knew too - criminally involved. This story has me on the warpath to find out if BoA - or any BoA employees are willing to talk about what was known in 2003. That's near 1/2 a trillion dollars That's some SERIOUS fraud, it seems ODD that the two sr. pentagon architects on the war on terror, Larry Di Rita, and General Tommy Franks are BOTH sr. officers in Bank of America now, and that BoA gets near 1/2 a trillion BONUS money ? free and clear ? from all those people buying mortgage products, that you'd borderline HAVE to believe there was no tomorrow to get involved with ? and who in their right mind would lend out 500k with no collateral check, no employment check, no money down and no interest for 5 years. really it all looks pretty suspect to me. That Fox ran sooooooo many CountryWide ads - and so much desperation in their media - I don't know, but I do say -let's get to the bottom of this.

June 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm

DrZoidberg

from Robert Canella above: This is enlightening…we see the FED backing with Taxpayer dollars a deal to save a private equity company…then the FED takes profits on the deal… heh, good pick up there, I missed that one, I did see the profit, but good observation. Indeed - Almost makes me think of all the advertising revenue Fox News took from CountryWide when CountryWide used their network as their #1 resource to get the message out back in 2003 - that you could get a no money down for 5 years, zero interest, no employer check, no asset check $500,000 mortgage. I bet CountryWide paid Fox News/NewsCorp enough money for all the employees who brought the sensationalistic stories interwoven between the CountryWide ads. I for one would PROBABLY want to denounce CountryWide - but I think Fox is STILL running CountryWide ads- their website had one on the front page last week iirc. I know MarketWatch had one yesterday for CountryWide - No Points, etc. It's hard to believe the forfeiture of integrity and for what ? chump change I for one would want to distance myself from CountryWide

June 27, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Ned

Thank you, Ms. McDonald, for finally shoving this week-old news onto the pages of a major media outlet. Pity that your sounding of the alarum comes only after the House approved the Bank of America's self-serving, self-drafted bailout bill. The mainstream media proves once again that it is nothing but a cheap-seats spectator to events that takes notes, and long ago abrogated even the pretense of being a watch-dog serving the interests of the people.

June 27, 2008 at 1:48 pm

popo

Glad to see that FOX is picking this up. This "bailout bill" is bad, bad, bad for America. Republicans are supposed to support free markets and limited government intervention in business. The bailout bill is a little piece of communist China being rammed through our legislative system. Say NO to government handouts to those who have failed in business.

June 27, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Justin

Robert Thanks for the heads up on fedupusa.org. I'll definetly spread the word. Federal reserve = socialism for the illuminati. I encourage everyone to read the following book to give you a horrifying view of how the federal reserve really works. Even if you aren't into conspiracies, this book will forever change the way you look at money. It made my stomach turn. http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986395/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214587067&sr=8-1

June 27, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Robert Canella

Wow... This is enlightening...we see the FED backing with Taxpayer dollars a deal to save a private equity company...then the FED takes profits on the deal...Dimon saying we don't think the collateral is worth anything at all. Nice deal! Next we see the "Friends of Angelo" getting deals from Countrywide/ B of A then offering more tax payer guarantees to the banks thru the DODD/SHELBY morgtgage bill...sure wouldn't want the banks to end up footing the bill for this mess! By the time this is over, I am afraid our children's children will be working 'till Christmas every year just to pay off the tax debts we are chalking up...gotta love those bankers and the FED!!! Conservative Estimate ~$.5 Trillion!!!!!! At least some real American's getting involved to get some attention to this non-sense. I understand there is a rally going on today (7/27) in Washington DC from a group called FED-UP USA... http://fedupusa.org

June 27, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Jon

Where can I get one of those loans? I'm not sure who is most crooked, BofA, Countrywide, Sen. Dodd????????? I think it's getting to be time to sue, sue and sue some more all the above and don't even think about bailing out these dimwits.It really makes me want to swear.......

June 27, 2008 at 12:55 pm

DrZoidberg

Well folks I figured there wasn't an article yesterday because there'd probably be another killer one today. And indeed there is. I just 'yesterday' learned from many others insights that the 300 Billion injection into US housing has Bank of America written all over it as benefactor. And here this morning ? Ms MacDonald reveals detail that makes ME want to wear glasses. I read in the article: The first Bank of America document is dated February 11, and is entitled “Federal Homeownership Preservation Corp.” The second is dated March 11, 2008, and is entitled “FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act of 2008.” Uh oh. This isn't good. the FHPC ? And CountryWide's acquisition of CountryWide ? the nations LARGEST mortgage company ? sheesh, Feb ? 2008 ? And BoA (BAC) put 2 billion down payment in November ? Time moves so fast for me now that I hit 40, I have to think was that november 2006 ? But this doesn't look good at all. This looks like what I'm hearing from other forums - that the 300 billion stimulus package so geared towards BoA's favor. All my hype on accidentally looking up General Tommy Franks - that guy who cut and run (I do say, I have to stop using that term, I'm not a big fan of it, but it's in part 'in your face Flanders's's [Simpsons/Fox]) to leave the ranks of the military as General and go take a new position on the board of directors for Bank of America (a move I STILL ask myself, huh ? ) ? And Rumsfeld's sr. spokesperson for War on Terror ALSO leaving the Pentagon to go join the ranks of Bank of America, then all this free money ? on the shy side of 1/2 a trillion USD ? Makes me wonder - if anyone had any of this planned out. Call me crazy, but makes me wonder. Either way - Maybe I'm mad that Dodd's never even returned my emails proposing a bank product transparency act that would allow the Fed to at least see what KIND of products are behind the money - something without, I'm puzzled the Fed can really make a good diagnosis before surgery on the economy. But I'm willing to jump on the Dodd CountryWide favoritism bandwagon now if NOT to question - just how MUCH the 300 billion package will aid Bank of America via CountryWide. Thanks for the story I DID watch Dodd's on c-span on this very bill, he was pretty convincing, I'll say that. But adding the CW favoritism and common sense to hold CW accountable - as California, Illinois and Washington State to date are in court ? I probably should take Dodd's pro 300 billion federal funneling plan and hold regard for the CAUSE - the allegedly criminal cause as to WHY this bailout is needed to begin with. Really ? If the 300 billion is needed because of reasons that come out of the Cali/Illinois/Wash. State legal suits ? as being well - illegal ? or unjust ? then - hey hey hey - stop that bill - and clear up the legalities FIRST - otherwise - this bill might be aiding criminals. Really. Oh well - time to finished reading - I only made it in 3 or 4 paragraphs before I felt compelled to comment :) I went over to wikipedia to look up different folks at Fox Business last week, I encourage everyone to check out the entry there for the author here, Elizabeth MacDonald - too many journalism awards to mention without breaking the web server text limit here probably, but when it comes to matters of the Federal Gov. being kept in check ? I see Ms. MacDonald fighting for the better interests of humanity - every time. Puzzling smartmoney.com (I just typed it in because I saw smartmoney.foxbusiness.com in my statusbar on my browser one day, and though, hmm, what's that, then I realized it's really www.smartmoney.com and mirrored at foxbusiness- but saw an article from that Jonathon character that's always going 'it's MY money, screw the people who bring it's value collectively - including the poor', and said I had to PAY to read more of it, I do say, I'd PAY to read the rest of THIS article, if it came to that, that's for sure).

June 27, 2008 at 10:22 am

about this blog

  • Elizabeth MacDonald is the stocks editor for Fox Business Network. She is recognized as one of the top prize-winning business journalists in the country, and has received 14 awards, including the top prize in business journalism, the Gerald Loeb Award for Distinguished Business Journalism, and the Newswomen's Club of New York Front Page Award for Excellence in Investigative Journalism.

browse posts

most popular posts