Spoken like someone who's been here a long time. ...and that's what it takes to see through all the muckety-muck.
Why would WB all of a sudden change his tune and be interested in the GSE's? DEMS have dramatically altered their mission. Nothing has changed with them or Gov attitude towards them. He fueled their demise and holds strong positions in direct opposition to them. I see no discussions between him and the current admin. Pipedream.
GSE shareholder lawyers should be using this. From other board.
A man once said the following, but remember there is complete bias involved in GSE analogies.
Yet another major bank collapse. First Republic Bank taken over by FDIC and sold to JPM. Largest bank collapse since 2008.
Biden Admin enacts subsidizing high risk mortgages at the expense of those with high credit scores.
From other board.
Mike won’t ever be Director, but not for a reason other than he would do the right thing. Which is something none, absolutely none have done to date. U have to have no ethics to be Director of FHFA.
in my 20+ years of investing, one thing has been obvious. volume and float is key to any stock movement. when there is a lot of volume and the stock goes up, the float is getting dried up, then if the demand is still there, the stock movement up can accelerate with almost no volume. where are the GSEs? i dont know outstanding vs float. so recently going up or down a couple pennies on average or below volume, it could mean anything from lack of real interest or the float is drying up. so lets see if real, good news, makes the stock shoot up, or does it just fade as in interest by a few longs and shorts nibbling for the penny swings or not.
Nothing in the history of man took 14 years to fix something that is not broke. As a matter of fact they have made it worse. Only the US gov could extort, loan shark, steal, and say it’s in the name of taxpayer after steeling 300 billion from private corporations
Nothing is getting restarted. The FNMA board is bored and delusional. Nothing g is going to happen for the rest of this regime window
of course this was dug up again, for posterity sake, lets review.
there would have be one entity, after an IPO of common shares on a real exchange, at a much higher price than today, and it will include dividends. say 25 to 40 cents per share. every common share will be rolled into the new IPO. they will obviously sell more shares to fund the new entity with transition costs and operating capital. lest we not forget the 200b stolen money, unless handled properly, it will be a brand spanking new target for law suits.
From Rodney, we all knew it was done like this, GSEs were perfectly fine that very same year.
Quote: “Former Wells Fargo Chairman and CEO Dick Kovacevich says the federal government's bank bailout during the depths of the financial crisis was an unmitigated disaster and laid much of the blame for the financial crisis on ineffective regulators.
The decision by the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve in October 2008 to make banks take TARP money even if they didn't want it or need it was one of the worst economic decisions in the history of the United States, Kovacevich.” End of Quote.
Quote: “Kovacevich said some might ask, Why didn't I just say no and not accept the TARP money? As my comments were heading in that direction in the meeting, Hank Paulson turned to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke sitting next to him and said, Your primary regulator is sitting right here. If you refuse to accept these funds, he will declare you capital deficient Monday morning. Kovacevich recalled, Is this America? I ask myself.” End of Quote.
It appears JPS attorney's aren't interested in any legal actions that would result in commons benefiting on their behalf. Perhaps by direction of their clients. No? Certainly would explain all the JPS holders on this board bashing commons. Perhaps they're afraid of commons 'stealing' too much of their pie. Breyer, on the other hand, wants a resolution that would benefit all stakeholders, not just a certain class. Thoughts?
$FMCC. SUMMARY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONSERVATORSHIP AND THE SEPARATE ACCOUNT PLAN ACCORDING TO THE LAW.
Watch my signature image to see how the Net Worth evolved during conservatorship (the PLMBS lawsuit settlement wasn't included yet) and how the UST backup of FnF works; The dividend on the cumulative SPS coincide with the interests on the amount due to FnF, after applying their special borrowing right from UST. So, it's netted out.
COMMON EQUITY: $97B ($150ps). It was calculated:
Beginning balance, June 2008:$-1.2B
+Accumulated Total Comprehensive Income (adjusted for the charges in several Accounting standard changes):$72B
+CRT, net (Retained Earnings):$7.7B
+73% PLMBS lawsuit, based on the AOCI (unrealized losses in PLMBS) on June 30, 2008, compared to Fannie Mae: $19B
It's reflected on the Balance Sheet with a posting of $97B on the Retained Earnings account and the Treasury Stock is reduced to $0 (the stocks repurchased are retired), the other accounts are approximately $0 as seen today.
Common Equity as of end of December 2022:
$0 common stock par value
$0 Additional Paid-In Capital
$0 Treasury Stock
$97B Retained Earnings account
U.S. Treasury, $55.8B: $48B SPS overpayment +$7.7B CRT, net.
FHFA, $18B PLMBS lawsuit (Atty fees, included)
Facts from Rodney:
You mention the illegal stock, SPS certificate, statement “cumulative" dividend. A certificate that also states that a dividend is paid out of available funds for distribution. And you think this is legal. You think this is okay? Ha
IT IS ALL ILLEGAL!
LISTEN! IF MR. Fisher can get us out of this prison under the terms he set forth, personally I am all for it.
Barron, has it right!
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract: The Charter Act is the Law.
SUBSECTION (g) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; CONDITIONS.— EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED. Page 16
Under this subsection the FHFA / Treasury would have to prove, 'What was the Emergency'...
(And this will open the door for the plaintiffs to bring out the forced write down of the deferred tax assets, treasury's charge of an illegal commitment fee, violated the law by not adding the liabilities onto the national debt, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation, 5th amendment, 14th amendment, etc...)
There was no 'Emergency.'
FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized, evidence the companies exceeded capital requirements absolutely no need for emergency funding.
SECOND QUARTER CAPITAL RESULTS
Fannie Mae’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $37.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $32.6 billion. Fannie Mae’s core capital of $47.0 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed capital requirement by $9.4 billion.
Freddie Mac’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $34.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $28.7 billion. Freddie Mac’s core capital of $37.1 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed minimum capital requirement by $2.7 billion.
Quote: “This sets the stage for dealing with FHFA since it seems to satisfy the three Thunder Basin work arounds that were created in Axon and Cochran today.” End of Quote...
Help me out?
The executive branch entities are not given the power to hold in-house tribunals, constitutional propriety.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion in full because it correctly applies precedent to determine that Axon Enterprise’s and Michelle Cochran’s structural constitutional claims need not be channeled through the administrative review schemes at issue. I write separately, however, because I have grave doubts about the constitutional propriety of Congress vesting administrative agencies with primary authority to adjudicate core private rights with only deferential judicial review on the back end.
The taking of private property in violation of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
FHFA and its Director are executive branch entities. They can not make changes to federal laws. Only Congress can change the law.
Therefore, the U.S. Congress did not give DeMarco the power to take all the future profits of their wards in conservatorship into perpetuity, thus Nationalizing the GSES, based on an Incidental Power in HERA.
The U.S. Congress would have given the FHFA more explicit instructions to do so than merely drafting in the HERA to do whatever it feels is in its best interests. DeMarco, this non-elected bureaucrat, has been allowed to steal the companies for the Treasury.
Fillings Fillings Fillings
What does that mean ??
A BIG bag of GSE money !!!! For there JPS while my ( wild card play ) for my commons get the crumbs… Maybe, maybe not but wait and see!!
I appreciate your attitude. Really like your suggestion.
Quote: "Best thing we could do is find a young keen lawyer fresh out of law school hungry to make a name for him or herself." End of Quote.
Also, I like what Barron had to say...
Re: Louie_Louie post# 748255
Monday, 02/13/2023 8:20:19 AM
A very valid concern. But we have to make an effort. The Charter was amended in 2008. Treasury tells us in the SPSPA that their authority to provide a commitment of 200 billion arrises from sec 304 of the amended charter act. It is up to a judge to decide if sec 304 allows the commitment fee to stay. Should a judge find the Charter Act to not allow such a fee arrangement, then relief sought is to make null and void the SPSPA in its entirety. As if it never happened and reverse all the actions back to GSEs. Simply stated we would ask that the terms of the agreement be enforced. All dividends paid including the 10% go back to the companies balance sheets. Should the Courts agree with Treasury that Congress allowed the commitment fee then the theory anticipates that constitutional claims of separation of powers, major questions doctrine, and 14th amendment claims would be made. Based on the 14th amendment debt clause and FASB the theory would ask that the GSEs be consolidated as federal entities. This would then require all equity to stop trading, US taxpayers would own all MBS products outright including all the 5 trillion in assets. Of course a takings will then have occurred and the entire enterprise value would need to be paid back to the equity holders. The US gov would need to decide whether or not they want to go back to 1938 or keep the GSEs private companies. This is what a major questions doctrine is all about. Treasury actions could amount to a solution that only Congress could have made.
Your talking about a bunch of penny stock guys hiding behind there computers. A lot can’t even fork out $20 for a pacer account so any thought of putting together a lawsuit is all talk in there part except me and Rodney and a couple of others who are willing to Atleast look at the potential.
Trunkmonk, I think you are right, in plain sight of defense not good. Yesterday, I was throwing out thoughts on the subject, asking for others' opinion. I appreciate shareholders as yourself. I did notice the communication vanished; Did you see that? Regards
Well I’m thinking if I was gonna buy a stock, and saw that current shareholders after 14 years, are discussing what they want to propose in court. I wouldn’t buy it. GSEs need solid case, not arm chair thoughts in plain sight of defense.
commons shares in every company are a risk, especially GSEs. some people cant understand this, especially the ones who have no business in the stock market. if they want safety they go with preferred. everyone knows this, but they keep saying commons have no security, and in the same breath preferred should get par. sad sad world for some so in debt they have no life other than to post negatives about common shares. commons wait until either courts decide something, or FHFA and treasury or congress totally mess up by stealing more.