Owners of asset-backed securities such as MBS have a first claim on the underlying asset but don't own it. Just like your mortgage lender has a first claim on your house but doesn't own it.
Furthermore, since the mortgages that back the GSEs' MBS issues are pooled, there is no link between an individual security and any particular mortgages. The MBS holder has a claim on part of the pool, not on specific mortgages.
Also, more recently the Fed has been buying MBS coupons rather than the MBS themselves. These simply entitle it to the cash flows. It has no claim on the underlying assets.
It would be good if people fond of pontificating on the composition of the Fed's balance sheet actually knew what they were talking about.
<rant over>
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It is also because vulnerable people such as children and disabled men can be in more danger after car breakdowns or accidents than lone women. It's extremely disturbing that this dogpile on the AA effectively assumes that only lone women are ever vulnerable and in danger.
Considering writing a post about percentages and small numbers. Since, you know, some people seem to think percentages are meaningful when numbers are very small....
So if only one person committed a certain type of offence last year, and two people committed that type of offence this year, that's an increase of 100% in the offending rate. SHOCK HORROR! WE NEED MORE POLICE! JUDGES MUST IMPOSE LONGER SENTENCES!
It's particularly depressing when academics and researchers who should know better use percentages about very small populations. Especially when they also resort to the fallacy of division, as this lot do here: fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-pr…
Very sad to see the account that tweeted this informative thread no longer exists. People did not respect Jake's request not to respond to his thread. There have been some pretty abusive quote tweets. "Cancel culture" claims another victim. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1482365…
I would like to remind gender critical people that BOTH sides in this debate are fully entitled to hold and express their views on Twitter. The beliefs of people who disagree with you are every bit as protected under the Equality Act as yours.
There have been too many examples of gender-critical people piling on people for daring to say something they don't like, driving them into protected accounts or off Twitter. The fact that the behaviour of some trans rights supporters is also pretty bad does not excuse this.
Please stop talking about trans women as if all of them are serious sex offenders. They are not.
Also, please pay attention to what people actually SAY. Paddick did NOT say women should be locked up with male rapists. He said each case should be individually risk assessed.
I am sick and tired of the outright lies spread by some gender critical people in pursuit of their agenda. The above is a fine example. Absolutely no-one, least of all Brian Paddick, is recommending locking up women with male rapists.
The number of trans women in prison is tiny. It is easily possible for the prison service to assess each case individually, taking full account of the needs of the prisoner AND the safety of other prisoners. That is what Paddick recommended.
A 25-tweet thread "debunking" Mallory Moore's (@Chican3ry) criticism of Redmond. It discusses all sorts of things, including the text Moore says she defended, but never once addresses Moore's point. Remarkable exhibition of whataboutery.
The thread leaves us in no doubt that Howard's text is extremely anti-semitic, but as it fails to discuss what Raymond said about Howard's text, we are none the wiser about whether Moore's criticism is justified.
I would have to say, though, that if Raymond cites Howard's text approvingly, she must also be regarded as anti-semitic.
to spell it out:
- since there was no change in the statistics, women serving sentences for rape at the time the Equality Act came into force weren't trans
- since there is no subsequent change in the statistics, women serving sentences for rape are still unlikely to be trans
though we have to be careful because the numbers are very, very small, so an increase of 1 person can create spurious signifcance.
one of the things I find most disturbing in the current outrage over trans rights is the fact that so much effort is being made to restrict the lives of a tiny number of people, not only to their detriment but potentially also to the detriment of other people too.