Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
That is largely a fair observation except that it excludes the reason why delinquencies fell, easing reserve pressure, and why homes "flew off the shelf" to alter the breadth and severity of the housing crisis. The Fed dropped interest rates to near zero levels. Existing mortgages with ARMs saw huge decreases in interest rates allowing them to keep properties earlier at risk. And the cost of new mortgages sank like a rock as 30 year rates dropped to around 4% for qualified buyers, reigniting the housing purchase market.
These events were a product of government's efforts to salvage the economy. The improvements in the GSEs income were only partly the result of prudent changes enacted under the direction of FHFA, but largely the beneficiary of retreatment of DTAs that became possible only because of Fed rate intervention, QE and TARP saving banks so mortage origination could resume. These government initiatives provided the GSEs with mortgage product with which further MBS could be created and sold to stimulate market liquidity. Without these actions, Fannie & Freddie had no purpose or value in remaining in business at all.
JMHO.
Sure, that is always a possibility that the court declines to hear the case. Part of the reason I think this may be unlikely in Sammons is because so many other jurisdictional challenges have already been mounted in other cases that the appeals panel must consider where there is so much smoke, maybe is there a real fire burning, somewhere, that supports a move to lower or state court venues? Makes it hard to rapidly dismiss Sammons without even any briefs or oral arguments offered, and a decision to do so might tend to prejudice the other pending cases which one must assume this court will be well aware of before anything official happens in Appeals court.
Very hard to predict. We may know more, early next week, such as if government appeals the Motion to Compel right out of the gate, Sammons or no. Hope we get some clarity, soon. Otherwise, more hurry up and wait.
JMHO.
One follow up point worth noting. Mr. Sammons has indicated his intent to appeal any adverse Appeals Court ruling to the Supreme Court. By the way, no action by the Court of Appeals, should Sammons be over-ruled there, can prevent he or any citizen from taking that action. Were that to occur immediately after a negative appeals ruling, a stay on matters in Sweeney's court would likely prevail until such time as the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case, or not. A decision to docket or remand from Scotus would likely span ANOTHER 60 to 90 days. If they decide to hear the appeal, the Spring docket is likely full meaning the case would be heard after Summer recess concludes, during the Fall session, and likely see a decision released sometime before the end of 2017.
JMHO.
My guess is just slightly different. Instead of filing an appeal, my bet is that government will request a stay pending resolution of the Sammons appeal. When Sammons eventually gets resolved, if the game in Docugate is even still on in Sweeney's court, that is when they will file an appeal on the Motion to Compel order. Until that point, government has no further recourse within the Sweeney Court of Claims while Sammons gets heard. All I expect from them, this coming week, is a response on the show cause ruling regarding Fairholme attorney's expenses on the Motion to Compel which could be covered by a stay, as well. The stay would be similar to the previous stay imposed last Spring while the judicial panel met to decide on case consolidation request. Everything was put on hold.
Either way, the case is likely to stall while Sammons churns through the now docketed legal appeals process. Even on the fast track, Sammons is likely to take at least two weeks for briefs, 4 weeks for orals and then time for a panel decision to be reached and written. Looks like 10 weeks at the earliest for any decision. That COULD lead to an additional 10 weeks before any ruling from Sweeney would be appropriate on attorney fees or before any documents get released based on a court order that potentially (unlikely, but possible) could be ruled as being ruled on in an improper jurisdiction, making any such ruling unenforceable.
At that time, assuming the case remains under Sweeney's court, that is when I would expect the government to file any Motion to Compel appeal... or... simply deliver the documents with the election over and let the chips fall where they may. All along I have been of the opinion that dragging Docugate out beyond November 8th was far more important to government than to any court concerns for affecting the contest at the polls. Even appointed judges tend to be reasonably apolitical while sitting on the bench.
JMHO.
Perhaps true, but Sweeney clearly stated the case for why she allowed the documents to be released. Plaintiffs established a bona fide reason why they might need such discovery to advance their case and government failed to prove that the identical info was available from other sources.
I think the message from Sweeney is different on payment of plaintiff's Motion to Compel legal costs than simply to underscore the significance of the contents therein. I think it is the judge's somewhat unsubtle way of saying she has had enough delays and obstruction to ever getting to a verdict. After 3+ years, we have not even reached a decision on the motion to dismiss. I think her message was to both sides that "enough is enough" which explains why it was a separate order and not lumped into the motion to compel order.
You must remember that most judges also have bosses that grade them, sometimes a peer panel, sometimes a chief judge on their own court. And all jurists get graded on a host of criteria by the lawyers that appear before them. These ratings matter. Judges care what those in their profession think of their performance, and that performance criteria is carefully considered in any decision to nominate or to affirm appointment to a higher court. That is true even on up to the SCOTUS level. These jurists really care. If this ordeal ever ends and we can get together for a martini to celebrate, remind me to tell you about a true experience I had with television's Judge Wapner in this regard. He was and, I believe still remains a sitting judge on the Los Angeles bench. I had a very relevant conversation with him, many years back. It's a fun story, but too long for this board.
Having read other rulings from Judge Sweeney, as well as those in Fanniegate, I think she is "the real deal" as a judge, and has exhibited extraordinary patience in what has become a veritable marathon in her court.
JMHO.
I totally disagree. I don't think that Judge Sweeney ever considered whether any document she viewed was a bombshell. I don't think anything mattered except issuing the best legal opinion she could deliver in the fairest manner to all parties. I don't agree with all her choices, but I must still respect what I thought was a very well-written and totally thorough order on the motion to compel.
You could, of course, be right, but experience with Federal courts tells me that only the rule of law mattered in how this all went down. It would be improper for the judge to have advised the government in anything, and I totally doubt this would ever happen in so hugh profile a case. The clients are left to figure things out for themselves in such matters, which I am sure happened many days ago, following the order's release on the 20th.
JMHO.
I asked you to let this go for very good reasons. You do NOT want to be playing in this sandbox. No further comment coming from me.
JMHO.
Yes, I think your presumption is accurate. The 2008 conservatorship was never intended as a takeover or nationalization. The content of the Bush e-mail corroborates the rationale for a recent court ruling that the GSEs are not government agencies but private companies operating under conservatorship.
Reading this actually gave me an added measure of respect for President Bush. That said, Wikileaks really is a total piece of shit for clandestinely pirating other people's property and releasing it as some self-appointed moral arbiter of all things governmental. Things were bad enough with the New York Times presumptively filling that arrogant space for many decades.
From the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac litigation observation deck, Bush's confirmation of private status intent for the Twins only makes it harder for any court to rule in favor of government owing restitution to shareholders. They could rule that the government owes restitution to the GSEs, however. Then stockholder suits could be refiled against Fannie and Freddie, themselves, although the statute of limitations starts to run into problems. Plus, the net effect of such actions from basically suing your own company for damages could really bust both GSEs and send the S/P into a tailspin from which any recovery is impossible.
The other notable thing from the Bush e-mail is that it totally debunks the multitude of conspiracy theories about manipulated numbers, risk and reserve subterfuge (the forensic accounting rubbish) and secret cabals between Hank Paulson, UST and either Goldman Sachs or TBTF banks because no takeover was EVER intended. It was a Red Cross rescue operation, not some conspiracy to seize shareholder property.
I find this e-mail release as very significant. Wonder what else is out there on any of the GSEs from this source? Could effectively neutralize documents from the Sweeneython release upcoming.
JMHO.
Now it's just getting silly. Mortgage loans are collateralized by property and inherently carry a much lower level of default than unsecured credit card debt. You cannot compare the two as comparable. If you compare the leverage multiple of banks loans vs. deposits to FNMA's ratio of MBS bond payments outstanding to reserves on hand, the risk profile is MUCH higher. It is one of the key underpinnings to the wallstreetonparade investigation into FnF.
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/05/confidential-memo-in-the-hedge-fund-battle-for-freddie-and-fannie-comes-out-of-hiding/
This is great, fact based stuff. And it clearly proves my point.
JMHO.
Maybe no progress has been made because Judge MoeRon Steal has buried any resolution under wild goose chases like State Supreme Court opinions wanted in novel areas of law?
This has dragged on so long that the steel has rusted.
But, what the heck. What's yet another slight lobbed in the direction of Judge Sleet. Always good strategy to attack and criticize the judge that is scheduled to hear your case. NOT. LOL.
JMHO.
So your "answer" only confirms that there are no such accounting rules as you earlier claimed or implied implicated the GSE's auditors in some form of wrongdoing. That's exactly what I expected. Righteous indignation because there are no facts to support the suit against either Deloitte or PWC.
Why do both suits seek to remand to a state court? Scared, maybe? LOL.
JMHO.
There are no peer companies. There are only banks. The GSEs reserves cover losses incurred from defaults by homeowners. They have no assets like the deposits banks have. The banks are carefully limited to how much risk they can carry as a multiple of their deposits. The GSEs have a much, much, much larger multiple of MBS obligations owed vs. mortgage assets held within portfolio. So, yes, risk is far greater in the GSEs than in banks and requires larger reserves, especially when the taxpayer is on the hook to cover a default that stress tests indicate could be monumental in dimension.
JMHO.
Auditors only have to sign off on 10-K annual reports. The 10-Q quarterly reports used immediately prior to Amendment 3, or even the earlier conservatorship in 2008, were NOT audited.
I am familiar with auditors delving into reserves for normal items like bad debt losses based on historical data, accruals for contractual expenses for things like commitments for advertising, legal department expenses etc. I am not familiar with any accounting standard requiring auditors to assure clients remain within any provision for macro-economic data and exogenous variables like Fed changes to interest rates, government interventions such as TARP and Quantitative Easing that are not 100% predictable with any certainty.
To me, "safe and sound" conservatorship could surely and legally include building a firewall of security where any error in judgement to reserve "too much" would clearly be preferable to "too little" amidst so much global uncertainty.
Please be good enough to inform the board of which accounting standard or rule applies to confirming your opinion and invalidating mine regarding required auditing of reserve criteria applicable to a period of unprecedented financial crisis. I would also appreciate you providing the rule that requires auditors to sign off on data in10-Q reports which the government states were part of the validation process for their actions.
Thanks in advance for helping to clarify this very important question.
JMHO.
A follow up, brandy, on loss reserves and auditors, since so much of the content in your post concerns this issue. The auditors have nothing to do with the appropriateness of reserve amounts. That is the sole responsibility of the Director of FHFA under the statutory requirements of HERA.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr3221/text
Please refer to Sec. 1111 and the concluding statements therein that expressly empower the Director to establish additional capital or reserve requirements" necessary to operate the entities in a safe and prudent way.
That is what the law says. So any pundit or plaintiff can critique the reserves, all they want, but such actions are within the law and there is nothing in HERA that requires any specific metric to be used by the Director. Just his judgement, as I read HERA.
JMHO.
I think where you are struggling is the notion that the GSEs cannot reinvest the proceeds. They can, and do. They are buying up mortgages all the time as part of their chartered mandate to bring liquidity to the mortgage market. The one problem you correctly note is that the higher rate paper being sold is being replaced with lower rate MBS being issued as interest rates remain so compressed from Fed action/inaction. I actually think Fannie, in particular, has done a meritorious job of managing the spreads in the numbers reported in their last two 10-Q's. Freddie, not so much.
Just trying to be helpful, here.
JMHO.
WAAAAY too much content to reply to in a single message. But a few brief thoughts to alternatively consider.
- 10% on $187 B = $18.7 B per year, either to be paid or added to liq. pref. History says this is unlikely.
- No one knew with any certainty any crisis outcome or timeline. Without QE that came later, the meltdown could/would have continued. And nobody predicted that The Fed would drop interest rates to near zero.
- There was huge chatter among economists on a double dip. Ireland, Greece and other global players were in a huge crisis. Sovereign debt became a crisis for all issuers. Guess which country has the most. LOL.
- The GSEs one huge income year in 2013 was reclassified DTAs, only.
The auditor suits are garbage and, like all trash, will just get thrown out soon.
JMHO.
I have been laser-focused on Sammons from the revelation of his first letter. It was the strongest-yet manifestation of my thesis that the legal circus that has dragged on for 3+ years, with new suit after new suit being filed, would lead to an eventual free for all as plaintiffs line up for the biggest piece they can grab from what Mr. Sammons likely nailed as a pie worth up to $150 billion.
I have read all the blog and Twitter claptrap about how Mr. Sammons must be a government mole, stooge or some such ulterior-motivated raison d'etre. Most of those theories seem to circumstantially tie to the Sweeneython document release. And, I suppose, that could be the truth. I don't know; I am not Mr.Sammons, although I got a big laugh out of somebody suggesting I was, the other day. Maybe it's possible that Mr. Sammons looked at all the recent courtroom setbacks in Fanniegate, the continuum of delays for more and more discovery and the looming exit of Perry Capital... the litigation granddaddy in Fanniegate... and concluded that his interests were at risk, exactly as he stated.
When I read his letter, Mr. Sammons did not attack Judge Sweeney for releasing documents. His largest issue was her getting nothing done, at least as I read it. We just had an event many here are aware of where a longtime poster immersed in the GSE saga for years passed away and, sadly, never got to see any resolution or settlement after YEARS of waiting and hoping for one. Maybe Mr. Sammons doesn't want to suffer the same fate and believes a lower court with non-appointed judges and a faster track can deliver better results for his interests?
In the last few months there is a noticeable shift in Jacobs. Hindes and the Pagliara suits seeking remand to a lower or state court. Is the Sammons initiative just a part of a broader effort to grab some low hanging fruit with less pretense and move on with whatever spoils come their way? Or is some other motive driving these tactics? It seems far likelier to me that there is more connection that randomness in all this activity to remand. We will never know because "discovery" doesn't apply to plaintiffs backroom dealings, either real or imagined. In Fanniegate, the transparency factor only applies to government; the plaintiffs get a fee pass to keep any secrets hidden. Impure motives? Well, I just keep thinking about the divvy from that $150 billion pie...
JMHO.
JMHO.
I have not seen any of "the older stuff" in the document cache, so in that category I can only guess. What I recall is that non-banks (like AIG) were charged 10% and banks were charged 5%. My opinion is that the GSEs and AIG were viewed as having a much higher risk profile because banks had higher loan reserves and lower lending leverage standards, and had a backstop of deposits that were guaranteed by the government in a different way under FDIC.
That's actually a question that is worth some in depth discussion. I wish others would chime in with their views beyond the usual discourse which has been largely "because they wanted to steal from shareholders."
JMHO.
Thanks for that post. Until now, I never knew that Tim Howard was a clairvoyant. Is that from the real Tim or the fake Tim?
Highly credible stuff? Seriously? Somebody thinks Document 19 came from Area 51? LOL. What's next, Nikes, Koolaid and the Hale-Bopp comet?
"Beam me up, Commander."
JMHO.
Maybe you should go back and read some of the older stuff for a second time. First off, Fannie prepared their own financials. FHFA/UST or the auditors have NOTHING to do with the nitty gritty numbers.
The lawsuits against the auditors are laughable, stupid and worthless. Yup. My opinion. But it's an informed opinion.
It is a fact that the GSEs in their history would never have been able to sustain repayment of the bailout funds advanced by taxpayers/government to save them based on the 10% SPD. This was admitted in the 2012 Q2/10-K filings with the SEC. By the by, such filings are NOT audited, only the 10-K, so claiming fraud by Deloitte or PWC in approving the numbers is total horseshit.
The truth is that NOBODY knew for certain what the future held for economic recovery in mid-2012. It was a scary time. Much concern was voiced about a double dip recession. Some of that concern, along with the second "bubble" controversy, remains active even today. Congress was frozen with budget gridlock in 2012 and the Ryan budget team was zeroed in on ridding the landscape of further bailouts to the GSEs.
Mark-to-market accounting did not single out the GSEs. It was applied across the board to banks real estate/property assets in similar fashion. No foul there. Income is profits. It is NOT DTAs.
JMHO.
I agree with you. Dismissal is in abeyance for the foreseeable future. First we have a stay in Perry, pending incoming "authority"... an apparent euphemism for Sweeneython documents. Then you have a stay in Fairhome while Sammons appeal goes through due process. So, no, you are totally correct. The dismissal is a future event in 2017.
"Mama in her kerchief, and me in my cap
Had just settled own for a long winter's nap"
Hurry up and wait. Maybe next Spring? Maybe the $$$ runs out, first?
Can you say: "Liquidation Preference"?
JMHO.
You really need to read the United States Letter of Interest that was docketed two days ago in the Deloitte and PWC cases, pending. Read the part about the 10-Ks filed by the GSEs during the lead in period to Amendment 3. Especially enjoy the part where Fannie says the 10% divvy is unmeetable based on reported metrics in any year in its history. These documents were the handiwork of Ms. McFarland, I believe.
LOL. Case dismissed.
JMHO.
Berko doesn't own any FNMA. He owns preferred shares only. Looks like you bought 500,000 shares of the wrong stock. Did you possibly really go to Trump University? That's a pretty "bold" blunder.
JMHO.
Epstein's article is equally full of crap. He infers that the documents yet to be released are related to the government's decision to take the GSEs income away from shareholders. That COULD be the case, or could be totally untrue. He doesn't know, either way, he has never seen the documents, but he states crap as fact. That's a lot like the Vanity Fair fraternity/rape cover story that was never fact checked and now headed to court. Fortune, a distinguished business publication, normally has higher journalistic standards.
I actually have a lot of respect for Richard Epstein's earlier work, but this kind of vomit is really beneath him. Did he just sell out for a big consulting fee?
JMHO.
Baloney. My contention is based on a long term investment thesis, one that has been well and fully spelled out on this board for many months. The one day event was an expected and predicted beginning of a projected outcome within my thesis. Much of my "conflict-based" each-man-for-himself projection is clearly borne out in the litigation dockets. The Happy Days era of teamwork, document sharing and complementary PR benefiting all claimants has given way to contests for jurisdictions, issues (taking vs. contract) and other strategic divergence.
FNMAS went up $.48 cents, yesterday, on very substantial volume. Some investors chose to take a dime or so off in profit taking, today, in comparatively light trading. That's what experienced investors would expect after a big run up.
Not so sure what lawyers would expect. An argument, maybe? LOL.
JMHO.
Yes.That proves there was no intent to "steal" their income and apply it elsewhere for budgetary help. Government just wanted to euthanize a system that left taxpayers exposed to huge risk in another economic down turn. That's just what the stress test recently proved.
Case dismissed. Thanks!
JMHO.
Morgenson is more likely to get the Dyson Award for moving mass volumes of air and making pre-decisional conclusions on cases that haven't even gone to trial, yet. Her Fanniegate contributions suck the big one.
Then, again, just to be fair... some experts put her contributions right up there with other sources such as Gator Capital, a true paragon of impartiality even while acting as a plaintiff in the PWC litigation.
JMHO.
You stated, regarding Mr.Sammons: "I think the guy's a joke with a history of doing things like this - goes nowhere."
The Appeals court apparently disagrees.
JMHO.
Sammons objection to Sweeney's ruling on intervention was docketed by the appeals court yesterday. Let the fun commence. The Sweeneython is now officially "on".
Makes me want to recall the great song from Maurice Williams & The Zodiacs that was later and brilliantly covered by Jackson Browne:
"Oh wont you S T A Y
Just a little bit longer
Please, please, please, please. please
Say that you will"
My FNMAS had a great day, but I had a bum mer of a night. Last night the common folk "got game"while I suffered a giant decline of interest in over celebrating Fannie Mae preferred's. I never really believed all that biblical exploit stuff attributed to Noah, as was clearly reinforced by yesterday's events. Wink, wink!
"Each man for himself" time has set in. Commons vs preferreds. Plaintiffs vs. defendants. Fairholme vs. Perry. Fairholme & Perry vs. Ackman. Government vs. hedge funds. Government vs. further bailouts. Everybody against big banks except TBTF players. And, next in line: Fannie shareholders vs. Freddie shareholders if Pagliara or the strangely absent MoeRon Steal set off a pissing contest that nets different results between Virginia and Delaware state court decisions.
As Charles Dickens in Tale of Two Cities once said: "It is the best of times. It is the worst of times."
We now are entering the period of convergence. All common FnF shares converge in a contest for superiority and reward, measured against preferred shares. When the courts resolve that question... could take 10 years... the Fannie vs. Freddie superiority contest ensues. Freddie is small banks and thrift friendly, Fannie is TBTF bank and Wall Street friendly. Who will win that contest? Which party wins in November.
It's just like handicapping the feature race at Belmont. I am betting a lot on the winner being Fannie preferreds. Lotsa reasons for that choice. But no subscription prices available to access that data.
Personally, I bet a huge chunk of my retirement savings on Fannie Mae preferred "S" shares as the eventual winner. I waited 8 years for AMZN to payoff from $10.15 when I bought it. I can be patient here, as well.
GLTA. JMHO.
I never said the commons would fall flat. They still could, though. Or they could pay off, big time.
All I have ever said is that preferred shares suit my risk tolerance and commons do not.
JMHO.
FNMAS up $.48 to $4.23/share, today. 13% gainer. Preferreds are the place to be. Just a sign of what is to come. En banc hearing on Piszel can recast takings vis-a-vis Fannie & Freddie from where it sat yesterday. This is a key case regarding restoration (including divvies)... in essence, debunking the non-cume preferred garbage and potentially putting preferreds back in the money for the duration of conservatorship.
The big guys clearly get it. Volume was well above normal daily average for FNMAS. Nice boost for Perry if he wants to dispose of holdings and nice pick up for whomever bought, today. More to come tomorrow? You betcha. The $5 threshold approaches as the divergence commences. I predicted it 4 months ago. Just took time to materialize, like everything else with this snail-paced play.
But carry on, anyway! I AM NOT SELLING! Only gains to come as the wind down clock ticks off the hours to zero hour, as pressure builds on EVERYBODY. That's when the settlement meets the road.
Cheers.
JMHO.
The "Key Documents" link (not you, the link) you posted is moronic and stupid. Anyone with a brain that read the 4 Appendices that were part of the original Motion to Compel going back to last December knew who the protected conversations were between. There is NO conclusive "gem" in any of that.
More meaningless "bombshells" that make mountains out of molehills.
JMHO.
I have a lot of respect for Sweeney's ruling. I said that yesterday. That said, yes a lot of content from 2008 will be released. Of the 4 Black Rock doc's viewed in camera, 3 are dated in 2008 and one was deemed to be in the same pre-decisional timeline. So, yes, insight will be gleaned from the early days. It's now guaranteed.
The part I just can't quite fathom is her determination that the plaintiff's "need to know" outweighs any need for protection because the information would be otherwise unavailable (my interpretation, not her words). That Black Rock stuff was in 2008 in the midst of a global financial crisis. How valuable would any projections from 2008 be to an Amendment 3 decision, 3+ years later? There obviously were later projections that are far more relevant to Fairholme's complaint which has little-to-nothing to do with the original 2008 conservatorship.
And,sure,I've read many conspiracy theories that claim the whole Fannie/Freddie enchilada spans pre-conservatorship into the sweep timelines in some master plot to benefit big banks/big donors. I've read them. I think they are all bunk. One of the things I really hope comes out of all these documents is some definitive end to such dialog. It's as boring as all the Obama Birther crap.
JMHO.
"Order To Compel Reveals President Obama Linked Directly To Plot To Hijack Fannie And Freddie"
This is clearly stated as a fact. As much of the blogosphere uses to impugn government's position in the Fanniegate matters pending.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-media-online-defamation.html
This is NOT smart, and the more comments like this one that are being Tweeted and posted in blogs that potentially impair the government's ability to function, hire people threatened by bloggers with losing their jobs in non-profit foundations and on, and on... all create problems and potential blowback for the judge whose ruling to compel release of protected documents becomes the fodder for defamation or purely false/unproven attacks on government officials.
There is a reason why I qualify almost every post as opinion. I have no personal goal of "experiencing things that go bump in the night" by making negative claims against people that cross the line into defamation territory.
JMHO.
Piszel v. U.S. takes on a new life. Request for an en banc re-hearing was docketed 10/3.
Taking claims are sure taking a LOT of time to resolve. And not just in the Fairholme case, either. And since they all seem to interlink, each refiling brings new delays to the entire process.
"Nero fiddles... Rome burns."
JMHO.
Don't forget Gator Capital in Tampa, FL who you also praised the other day among the same reputable sources you just cited. Just so everyone knows where that perspective comes from, Gator Capital is a plaintiff in the Edwards vs. PriceWaterhouseCoooer suit and is a small investment advisory firm.
Reputable sources: Gretchen Morgenson, Josh Rosner, Bethany McLean, Richard Epstein... and, of course, the totally unbiased plaintiff: GATOR CAPITAL.
Nice!
JMHO.
The responsible media doesn't know how to react because you have the blush effect of news from Sweeney that was already "previewed" days ago after being "leaked" by Bradford last Thursday, moderated by the appeal filing lobbed out there by Sammons that NO pundit has addressed in any way... including on this board. I first brought it up, here, it has almost ZERO comment since, yet it has the potential to stay the Sweeney ruling for a LONG period of time.
All the blog hogs have laid out there are self-serving opinions and bombshell speculations about documents about which no more detail has been released that on the Compel motion indices 1 thru 4 in 2015 dockets. Well whoop-de-doo! It means nothing until some detail gets released, and nothing I saw in the Sweeney order makes any public disclosure look any likelier, or would give anyone reason to believe that either side gained that much of an edge, for now.
There will be more impact from the Sammons appeal before the first page of copy paper passes hands from the government to either the court or the plaintiffs. Or a mandamus push back from government, though I sense that is less likely. Every document batch released from Privilege Purgatory adds weeks/months to the end decision process. Cheer for the doc's all you want, but the delays get nobody anywhere and that looks like a pattern that will continue for the foreseeable future. Want even more documents released? Great! Add a few more months to the ladies-in-waiting line. Want some more? Certainly, Sir. Add a few MORE months.
Why would the S/P celebrate any of that? Better to save the champagne for the Mets beating the Giants in the Wild Card game tomorrow.
JMHO.
I received a subpoena from the judge and I was only a stockholder. I will have nothing more to say about the case which goes back much farther than you researched and also involved publications such as Tradewinds. I have jeopardies here. I will have no further comment other than restating that blogs and twitter can really complicate and vex courts and can have serious consequences when protected (or should have been protected) information gets released and harms others.
Leave it there. The internet manipulation in Fanniegate actually reminds me of some of the NEWLF games that cost me and a lot of others what we believed sounded credible a lot of cash. You can also investigate the saga of Longwei Petroleum and the interplay that involved Red Chip and Seeking Alpha. In fact, Chinese micro-caps are even more relevant with recent clues offered in Sammons and Glen Bradford comments that I am staying away from. By the way, unlike most "Fannies" I chose not to sue anybody and lamented my bad choice made in picking a loser. There's a lesson in that that could benefit many, here.
JMHO.