I mean, how do you work with them on that kind of thing?

So obviously, as you know, we've got to differentiate between the Fed and the West Wing and the executive.

Treasury, Secretary Besson comes out in August and says, hey, let's go buy at the long end of the curve and we'll issue at the short end of the curve to pay for that.

A lot of people sort of said, oh, great, he's trying to get rates down at the long end of the curve to allow people to go buy homes.

First of all, that wasn't very successful.

Good intention.

The outcome probably wasn't what the secretary would have hoped it to have been.

Are we looking, though, at when everybody has to come to refinance that debt and rates are still high or potentially even higher? Are we going to have a big problem?

Will rates go higher?

So there are a lot of people who've sort of been saying spreads are going to gap out if Fannie and Freddie get spun back out.

And I think at the core of all that is the guarantee, the government guarantee, which right now is an implicit government guarantee.

It's not an explicit government guarantee.

And one of the things I think people forget is that Fannie and Freddie have never, ever since they were both founded, had an explicit guarantee.

So my thinking is that if they got spun with an implicit guarantee, with the same type of scaffolding they have around them with credit lines from the U.S. Treasury and things of that nature, that you wouldn't see a material change in the pricing of the bonds that Fannie and Freddie issue, and therefore in the cost of borrowing to the U.S. consumer.

There are plenty of people who would take the other side of that and say, hey, if they get spun without exactly the guarantee that they have in place today, which is in conservatorship, Prices will gap out and the cost of borrowing to the U.S. consumer will go up.

Tell me what's sort of most top of mind for you in terms of the overall industry right now.