PDA

View Full Version : Acting CFO of Freddie Mac is dead


Yahoo!!
22 Apr 2009, 05:35 PM
Now being reported, apparently the acting CFO of Freddie Mac committed suicide.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE53L2IB20090422



David Kellermann, acting chief financial officer of troubled U.S. mortgage giant Freddie Mac, was found dead on Wednesday in his suburban Virginia home after apparently committing suicide, a local police source said...
...
A 16-year veteran of Freddie Mac, Kellermann had played a key role in helping the firm navigate past accounting scandals and answer questions from regulators and investors who put the company under intense scrutiny as the U.S. housing market ended a five-year boom in 2006...




It is always sad to see this happen and my condolences to the family . It is Enron all over again like Clifford Baxter. I am wondering if something is trouble brewing over at Freddie Mac right now. I also have a difficult time thinking suicide fits the picture here. I guess we will have to wait for the more information to come to light. Personally, I feel that some nasty information might come out of Freddie Mac in the coming days.

Lisa0315
22 Apr 2009, 05:42 PM
Jesus! :(

Troglodyte
22 Apr 2009, 06:47 PM
The cynic in me says that Congress' feet need to be held to the fire on all of this.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/9/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle.html

tjakey
22 Apr 2009, 06:55 PM
The cynic in me says that Congress' feet need to be held to the fire on all of this.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/9/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle.html

rrriiiigggght....because there's no chance that anyone on Wall Street on the (now-ex) Bush White House could have possibly done anything wrong...

(You're not the only cynic.)

Troglodyte
22 Apr 2009, 07:26 PM
The cynic in me says that Congress' feet need to be held to the fire on all of this.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/9/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle.html

rrriiiigggght....because there's no chance that anyone on Wall Street on the (now-ex) Bush White House could have possibly done anything wrong...

(You're not the only cynic.)

As I commented in another thread, I don't deny that the Bush admin or Wall Street had zero mud on them. The blame can be and should be spread evenly around, not only or just towards Wall Street and Bush.

Lisa0315
22 Apr 2009, 07:32 PM
The cynic in me says that Congress' feet need to be held to the fire on all of this.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/9/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle.html

rrriiiigggght....because there's no chance that anyone on Wall Street on the (now-ex) Bush White House could have possibly done anything wrong...

(You're not the only cynic.)

As I commented in another thread, I don't deny that the Bush admin or Wall Street had zero mud on them. The blame can be and should be spread evenly around, not only or just towards Wall Street and Bush.

Sorry, but while the economy was beginning to slide at the beginning of the Bush administration, Bush did not do a damn thing to stop it. Instead, he made things worse by starting a stupid war in Iraq promising us all that the war would pay for itself. It didn't. It won't.

Any economist could have predicted this, and any sensible leader should have made the economy his priority.

Lisa

Garnet
22 Apr 2009, 07:41 PM
True, but that still does not clear Congress from they're (its?) own liabilities and failures.

There have been alarm bells clanging all over the place about predatory lending practices for years and IIRC not much done by congress.

Troglodyte
22 Apr 2009, 07:42 PM
rrriiiigggght....because there's no chance that anyone on Wall Street on the (now-ex) Bush White House could have possibly done anything wrong...

(You're not the only cynic.)

As I commented in another thread, I don't deny that the Bush admin or Wall Street had zero mud on them. The blame can be and should be spread evenly around, not only or just towards Wall Street and Bush.

Sorry, but while the economy was beginning to slide at the beginning of the Bush administration, Bush did not do a damn thing to stop it. Instead, he made things worse by starting a stupid war in Iraq promising us all that the war would pay for itself. It didn't. It won't.

Any economist could have predicted this, and any sensible leader should have made the economy his priority.

Lisa

9-11 and public and congressional opinion (Dems voted to go to war) put the economy on the back burner. True, Bush was more laissez faire when it came to the economy anyhow, though he did somewhat of a reversal in the final two years.

And while it's pure speculation, I fully believe that had algor become president, we'd still have gone to war and still be facing the situation we're in.

Lisa0315
22 Apr 2009, 07:45 PM
As I commented in another thread, I don't deny that the Bush admin or Wall Street had zero mud on them. The blame can be and should be spread evenly around, not only or just towards Wall Street and Bush.

Sorry, but while the economy was beginning to slide at the beginning of the Bush administration, Bush did not do a damn thing to stop it. Instead, he made things worse by starting a stupid war in Iraq promising us all that the war would pay for itself. It didn't. It won't.

Any economist could have predicted this, and any sensible leader should have made the economy his priority.

Lisa

9-11 and public and congressional opinion (Dems voted to go to war) put the economy on the back burner. True, Bush was more laissez faire when it came to the economy anyhow, though he did somewhat of a reversal in the final two years.

And while it's pure speculation, I fully believe that had algor become president, we'd still have gone to war and still be facing the situation we're in.

Oh, I didn't want no Al Gore, don't get me wrong. I voted for Bush twice. I voted twice for Clinton before that, and I voted for Obama this time around. At the time, I thought Bush was what was best for this country, but he pretty much undid all the good that Clinton did and then some.

Lisa

Garnet
22 Apr 2009, 07:46 PM
The day Bush was inaugurated in his first term, it was a foregone conclusion that we would be at war with Iraq. At least in my house and among many of my friends and acquantances. In fact, I won a bet over that very matter and the bet was made prior to 9/11.

While the war in Afghanistan can be justified by 9/11, Iraq cannot be. In fact, I've failed to see any real justification for that war other than Bush going in there to finish what Daddy didn't.

Troglodyte
22 Apr 2009, 07:54 PM
Oh, I didn't want no Al Gore, don't get me wrong. I voted for Bush twice. I voted twice for Clinton before that, and I voted for Obama this time around. At the time, I thought Bush was what was best for this country, but he pretty much undid all the good that Clinton did and then some.

Lisa

I was apolitical until 1998. Had I voted in 96, I'd have probably voted for Dole, though I preferred Keyes. I was ignorant of third parties with the exception of Perot... and he just seemed too nutty. Bush 00, Constitution Party 04, McCain - eyes closed, 08.