Over 400k shares just went thru in the last 4 minutes. Nice, a little volume!

Yes, Bill M. is someone "in the know" and knows many others "really in the know".

As I stated a while back, it looks as though Judge Lamberth's calendar may be pretty full for the next four months or so. I hope I'm wrong and he has time to work on the Perry case as well.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=104597056

RE: Perry lawsuit. It appears Judge Royce Lamberth's court calendar could be pretty busy for the next four months or more. I'm not saying he won't have time for the Perry case, but he is only one month into what looks to be more than a five month long jury trial case.

From below..."The trial is expected to last at least five months."

USA v Slatten, Slough, Liberty and Heard

Postcard from Washington: In Blackwater case, USA vs. Liberty et al brings Iraq carnage home.

Allen Abel
Published: June 20, 2014, 12:01 pm

Updated: 1 month ago

WASHINGTON — The courtroom comes to order and a functionary in pink high heels leads the citizenry in. One hundred and eleven Washingtonians follow her onto the pews, dressed for a picnic rather than a prosecution, and brandishing umbrellas against a predicted deluge.

Like their city, half of these prospective jurors in a multiple-murder case are Caucasian and the other half are African-American, all of them outfitted for the solstitial swelter in a splash of dashikis, skullcaps, henna, do-rags, denim, batik, silk, and Madras shorts. Identified only by numbers at this point, the 111 are about to face a battery of questions meant to convey them to a place they never have been, in a time long past: Nisoor Square in Baghdad on Sunday afternoon, Sept. 16, 2007.

By then, George W. Bush’s war of choice in Iraq already was four and a half years old, and the country was suffering a daily Golgotha of roadside ambushes, homicide bombings, sectarian vengeance, and uncaged immemorial hatreds. Saddam Hussein had been dead for nine months and his terrible swift sword had not yet been — and still has not been — grasped by another leader strong and cruel enough to quell the maelstrom.

Sept. 16, 2007 was the day when a convoy of triggermen employed by a U.S. government contractor and security company, Blackwater Worldwide, engaged in a notorious and chaotic firefight that left at least 14 Iraqis dead in the plaza and four Americans embedded in a criminal case that has lurched on ever since.

Now, 12 of the 111 men and women on the benches will be chosen to decide — in a small, single, and symbolic way — whether what America did to the people of Iraq legally can be labelled murder. The trial is expected to last at least five months.

The Blackwater case is being overseen by a double-chinned former military judge advocate whose portly aspect and jocular mien contrast sharply with the four fit and steel-jawed defendants in the dock. One of those ex-Blackwater guards — a smallish, balding, stubbled man named Nicholas Slatten, a former U.S. army sniper from Sparta, Tennessee — is facing life in a federal prison for murder in the first degree. The others — Paul Slough, Dustin Heard, and Evan Liberty — are being tried on charges of manslaughter that could bring a 30-year sentence.

Thus, one of the cases formally is styled: USA versus Liberty.

Slough is a barrel-chested Texan; Liberty, from New Hampshire, tall and square-chinned; Heard, another Tennessean, compact and strong. In crisp new suits, the accused sit mutely beside their lawyers, the decorum of the courtroom the antithesis of the hecatomb that is Iraq this week.

At the same moment, two floors above them, another echo of America’s long ordeal: lawyerly manoeuvring in the case of a Guantanamo prisoner named Abu Wa’el Dhiab who claims that he is being hog-tied, handcuffed, and force-fed daily by his guards, rather than being accorded the liberty to starve himself to death. But a sign on the door says that these proceedings are sealed.

Two flights down, Slatten gulps a can of Red Bull as the parade continues of the men and women who will decide if orange shall be the new Blackwater tunic.

Here is an older woman, limping on a cane, who informs the judge that she is taking medications for asthma, high blood pressure, gastritis, and crippling pains in her legs. But Judge Royce Lamberth is more concerned about whether she will be able to hold herself together when images of the bloodbath at Nisoor Square are projected for all to see.

“There will be actual pictures of victims,” the judge warns her.

“I’ve never seen pictures like that,” the woman says. “I don’t know how I’ll react.”

The lady steps down and is replaced by a woman who resembles a young Alanis Morissette and who turns out to be the wife of an FBI lawyer, the close friend of a Guantanamo interpreter, the niece-in-law of an Atlanta murder victim, and the former neighbour and constant childhood companion of an American soldier who was blown up by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan, survived his wounds, developed cancer, died, and was buried across the river at Arlington with thousands and thousands of other patriots and peers.

“Some witnesses tell the truth, and some don’t,” Judge Lamberth cautions her. “That includes law enforcement. That includes the FBI.”

“Would verbal and visual depictions of people being shot and killed affect your ability to serve as a juror in this case?” the judge inquires.

“I guess verbally hearing something would be OK,” the candidate answers. “But I’m not sure if images like that would reverberate in my mind.”

“Do you follow the news of what is happening over there?”

“It’s been going on for such a long time,” the woman says, speaking for millions. “I guess I’ve developed an insensitivity.”

Make sure to make at least half of that post a quote from some article or other commenter and the other half about anything other than what you promised to deliver.... ;)

TimHoward717 has removed this latest post from his blog because it lacks accuracy in any way.

While I really do appreciate that the blogger is trying to unite and educate FnF long-term investors s/he is not very good at adding any real facts other than what is already available to the general public. Actually most of his/her good info/ideas seem to come from some of the more educated commenters on the site. I just wish he would stop acting like he has some inside info that he keeps promising to reveal in his next post. It takes away from the credibility of many real long-term investors in FnF.

As stated before, I do appreciate the legal documents he has posted, but a lot more transparency and honestly and a little more humility would go a long way for his blog IMO.

New NOTICE submitted by Fairholme. Listing all of the "ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS".

1:13-cv-00465 FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et al v. USA
Today, July 25, 2014, 1 hour agoGo to full article
[Notice (Other) PLEASE DO NOT USE FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL] (76)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, Inc., et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)No. 13-465C
v. ) (Judge Sweeney)
)
THE UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Under the Protective Order entered by the Court on July 16, 2014 (Doc. 73), counsel for the parties are authorized to access Protected Information. In addition to Plaintiffs’ attorney of record, Charles J. Cooper, a number of other attorneys at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC have appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs at hearings in this action and/or on pleadings submitted by Plaintiffs. In addition, other attorneys at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC have worked on this case on behalf of Plain-tiffs. In order to ensure that the record is clear regarding the identity of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Plain-tiffs hereby respectfully file this notice identifying the following attorneys at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC who should be considered “of counsel” attorneys for Plaintiffs within the meaning of RCFC 83.1(c)(1):
David H. Thompson
Vincent J. Colatriano
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
Peter A. Patterson
Nicole Jo Moss
Brian Barnes
Michael Weitzner
Howard Slugh

For purposes of this action, the contact information for the above-listed of counsel attorneys is as follows:
COOPER &KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 (fax)
Date: July 25, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
s/ Charles J. Cooper
Charles J. Cooper
Counsel of Record
COOPER &KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 (fax)
ccooper@cooperkirk.com
2
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 76 Filed 07/25/14 Page 2 of 2

Yes JacobZf, if you add up all of the adding that SP has done without a single post about selling it probably totals 3-5 million shares easily, maybe more. S/He has to be worth 10's of millions, if not 100's, but has to welch on a simple $300 bet s/he lost to another poster here.

It is what it is. Anyone can be king on the internet! hahaha

RE: Perry lawsuit. It appears Judge Royce Lamberth's court calendar could be pretty busy for the next four months or more. I'm not saying he won't have time for the Perry case, but he is only one month into what looks to be more than a five month long jury trial case.

From below..."The trial is expected to last at least five months."

USA v Slatten, Slough, Liberty and Heard

Postcard from Washington: In Blackwater case, USA vs. Liberty et al brings Iraq carnage home.

Allen Abel
Published: June 20, 2014, 12:01 pm

Updated: 1 month ago

WASHINGTON — The courtroom comes to order and a functionary in pink high heels leads the citizenry in. One hundred and eleven Washingtonians follow her onto the pews, dressed for a picnic rather than a prosecution, and brandishing umbrellas against a predicted deluge.

Like their city, half of these prospective jurors in a multiple-murder case are Caucasian and the other half are African-American, all of them outfitted for the solstitial swelter in a splash of dashikis, skullcaps, henna, do-rags, denim, batik, silk, and Madras shorts. Identified only by numbers at this point, the 111 are about to face a battery of questions meant to convey them to a place they never have been, in a time long past: Nisoor Square in Baghdad on Sunday afternoon, Sept. 16, 2007.

By then, George W. Bush’s war of choice in Iraq already was four and a half years old, and the country was suffering a daily Golgotha of roadside ambushes, homicide bombings, sectarian vengeance, and uncaged immemorial hatreds. Saddam Hussein had been dead for nine months and his terrible swift sword had not yet been — and still has not been — grasped by another leader strong and cruel enough to quell the maelstrom.

Sept. 16, 2007 was the day when a convoy of triggermen employed by a U.S. government contractor and security company, Blackwater Worldwide, engaged in a notorious and chaotic firefight that left at least 14 Iraqis dead in the plaza and four Americans embedded in a criminal case that has lurched on ever since.

Now, 12 of the 111 men and women on the benches will be chosen to decide — in a small, single, and symbolic way — whether what America did to the people of Iraq legally can be labelled murder. The trial is expected to last at least five months.

The Blackwater case is being overseen by a double-chinned former military judge advocate whose portly aspect and jocular mien contrast sharply with the four fit and steel-jawed defendants in the dock. One of those ex-Blackwater guards — a smallish, balding, stubbled man named Nicholas Slatten, a former U.S. army sniper from Sparta, Tennessee — is facing life in a federal prison for murder in the first degree. The others — Paul Slough, Dustin Heard, and Evan Liberty — are being tried on charges of manslaughter that could bring a 30-year sentence.

Thus, one of the cases formally is styled: USA versus Liberty.

Slough is a barrel-chested Texan; Liberty, from New Hampshire, tall and square-chinned; Heard, another Tennessean, compact and strong. In crisp new suits, the accused sit mutely beside their lawyers, the decorum of the courtroom the antithesis of the hecatomb that is Iraq this week.

At the same moment, two floors above them, another echo of America’s long ordeal: lawyerly manoeuvring in the case of a Guantanamo prisoner named Abu Wa’el Dhiab who claims that he is being hog-tied, handcuffed, and force-fed daily by his guards, rather than being accorded the liberty to starve himself to death. But a sign on the door says that these proceedings are sealed.

Two flights down, Slatten gulps a can of Red Bull as the parade continues of the men and women who will decide if orange shall be the new Blackwater tunic.

Here is an older woman, limping on a cane, who informs the judge that she is taking medications for asthma, high blood pressure, gastritis, and crippling pains in her legs. But Judge Royce Lamberth is more concerned about whether she will be able to hold herself together when images of the bloodbath at Nisoor Square are projected for all to see.

“There will be actual pictures of victims,” the judge warns her.

“I’ve never seen pictures like that,” the woman says. “I don’t know how I’ll react.”

The lady steps down and is replaced by a woman who resembles a young Alanis Morissette and who turns out to be the wife of an FBI lawyer, the close friend of a Guantanamo interpreter, the niece-in-law of an Atlanta murder victim, and the former neighbour and constant childhood companion of an American soldier who was blown up by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan, survived his wounds, developed cancer, died, and was buried across the river at Arlington with thousands and thousands of other patriots and peers.

“Some witnesses tell the truth, and some don’t,” Judge Lamberth cautions her. “That includes law enforcement. That includes the FBI.”

“Would verbal and visual depictions of people being shot and killed affect your ability to serve as a juror in this case?” the judge inquires.

“I guess verbally hearing something would be OK,” the candidate answers. “But I’m not sure if images like that would reverberate in my mind.”

“Do you follow the news of what is happening over there?”

“It’s been going on for such a long time,” the woman says, speaking for millions. “I guess I’ve developed an insensitivity.”

Part two...the other POV. If you are interested, I believe this briefing tomorrow while be just as enlightening, but from our POV. I believe Josh Rosner will also be participating.

Housing Finance Reform: Past, Present, and Future
Capitol Hill Briefing
July 18, 2014 12:00PM
2203 Rayburn House Office Building

Featuring Kevin Villani, University of San Diego; and Mark Calabria, Director, Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute; moderated by John Maniscalco, Director, Congressional Affairs, Cato Institute.

While accounts of the 2008 Financial Crisis differ across the political spectrum, almost all accounts contain some role for our mortgage finance system. Although efforts were made in the Dodd-Frank Act to improve mortgage standards, these requirements were modest at best and ignored the vast guarantees and moral hazard behind our current system. Join our panel to discuss the history of our current mortgage finance system and what must be done to avoid future crises.

If you can’t make it to the Cato Institute, watch this event live online at www.cato.org/live and follow @CatoEvents on Twitter to get future event updates, live streams, and videos from the Cato Institute.

This is a must read for anyone who’s a FnF long. This provides some of the best information I've read, in a long time, on what's really going on with the details of Housing Finance Reform and FnF.

A Johnson-Crapo Dialogue
Jim Parrott, Ellen Seidman, Laurie Goodman
Laurie Goodman, Ellen Seidman and Jim Parrott discuss the consensus that emerged around reform of the Government-Sponsored Enterprises, the fault lines in the Senate negotiations, where reform stands now, and the likelihood and consequences of further action or inaction in the coming months.

While I realize the Urban Institute and the three folks involved in this dialogue certainly lean towards the Administration’s POV, it offers a detailed view into what recently happened and what (and why) could happen soon with regards to Housing Finance Reform. I don’t agree with the ideals of the three speakers, but they are very smart and rumors are that Jim Parrott, at least, may have the ears of some in Washington. While they all seem to be pushing for reform that may not help us as long term investors in FnF, I’m encouraged by their feelings that it most likely won’t happen anytime soon (if ever) as these folks are very much in the know imo.
Again, I learned a great deal reading this and it can only help me decipher future news about FnF. I hope it helps others as well.

MB, thanks for your response and thank you for all of the DD you have provided the board in the past. I wish I could make some of those conferences.

Good look with living your version of "this old house". ; ) I wish you luck in the that endeavor. That process can be very rewarding.

Thanks for keeping up with the moderator duties as well.

yep, for sure.

There's Ackman.....gotta bring up FnF now, right?

We all hope he does...and he might because FnF are some of his more recent plays (that have been reported). I'm not counting on it though.

Yes, thanks for the data.

Put on da skillet short-nin bread

Short-nin bread an it baked thin

Al-ways makes dem chil-lun grin

MB, did you attend today's Status Conference? If so, do you have any details you can possibly share?

As always, thanks in advance.

riskychick, congratulations! Based on your comments, you should be able to get out now without a loss! Happy for you and good luck in the future!

I agree, he used to regularly supply the board with great info/insight. I could be wrong, but I think he was getting grief from a few posters on here and may have decided to take a step back from the "drama". Again, jmo, I could be totally off base.

Hey MB, it's been awhile, hope you're doing well.

I was wondering if you plan on attending tomorrow's Status Conference? If so, maybe you can supply us with a few details.

TIA

Yes, malebaboon has attended them in the past, not sure if he has continued though. Hopefully he can make it tomorrow and maybe supply us with a report.

Regarding PACER, thanks for doing that. Yes, the Perry "judgment" is a big one. As of now, there is nothing for the Perry case on Judge Lamberth's calendar, at least through 10/31/14.

hvpatel, thanks a lot for looking into it. Figured it was probably something small, but you never know.

Again, many thanks.

Joint Status Repost (71) in Fairholme case filed about an hour ago.

Anyone with PACER?

TIA


1:13-cv-00465 FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et al v. USA
Today, July 15, 2014, 1 hour ago
Go to full article
[Status Report (JOINT)] (71)

You would think, but nothing will surprise me with these cases. The original July 31st date that the Judge set for finalizing discovery is going to be WAY off.

Thanks cmdr. I wasn't upset, just filling mike usa in.

It worked. Here is the order from th717's blog site.

ORDER 70

As outlined in the court’s April 9, 2014 order in the above-captioned case, the parties
shall inform the court if they seek to have a status conference on Wednesday, July 16, 2014. In
the event that a status conference will be held, it shall take place at 2:00 p.m. on that day.
Further, no status conferences in this case shall be held between Wednesday, July 23, 2014 and
Wednesday, August 6, 2014. If needed, a status conference shall take place on Thursday, August
7, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.

In addition, given the parties’ recent filings and the current status of discovery, it appears
that jurisdictional discovery will not be completed by the date originally anticipated.
Accordingly, once a protective order has been entered and the scope of discovery has been fully
identified, the parties shall file a joint status report setting forth their respective positions
concerning the date by which jurisdictional discovery will be completed. After that date is
determined, if the parties find during the course of continuing discovery that additional time is
needed to complete it, they shall file the appropriate motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Margaret M. Sweeney
MARGARET M. SWEENEY
Judge

Mike usa, I posted it here and Navycmdr (Ron Luhmann) posted it on the th717 blog site. I don't have a PACER acct set up it see the Order 70, but my guess is it probably communication about the Status Conference tomorrow.

NEW ORDER in Fairholme case out last night @ 9:21pm

1:13-cv-00465 FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et al v. USA
Yesterday, July 14, 2014, ?9:21:23 PM
Go to full article
[Order] (70)

Citigroup reaches $7 billion deal with feds

By JON PRIOR | 7/14/14 7:15 AM EDT Updated: 7/14/14 7:56 AM EDT

Citigroup has agreed to pay $7 billion in a deal with the government for misleading investors about the riskiness of some mortgage-backed securities sold in the run up to the 2008 financial crisis, the Justice Department announced Monday.

The deal marks another notch for a task force formed by President Barack Obama in 2012 to investigate whether major banks knew they were packaging shoddy loans into securities they were selling to investors, which included pension funds, local governments and other financial institutions.

The settlement struck with Citi follows several months of talks that at one point broke down over the size of the penalty the government was seeking and federal authorities last month begun finalizing a formal lawsuit.

The fines include a $4 billion civil penalty, which Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday is the largest of its kind.

“The penalty is appropriate given the strength of the evidence of the wrongdoing committed by Citi,” he said in a statement. “Despite the fact that Citigroup learned of serious and widespread defects among the increasingly risky loans they were securitizing, the bank and its employees concealed these defects.”

The deal also includes $2.5 billion in the form of debt relief to homeowners still struggling to make payments after the housing market’s crash more than five years ago. In addition, $500 million will be paid to several state agencies and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Citigroup, which received $45 billion in bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis, is one of the largest banks yet to be penalized by the task force.

“This action is merely the latest step in our active and ongoing pursuit of those whose activities defrauded the American people and inflicted grave damage on our financial markets,” Holder said. “Citi is not the first financial institution to be held accountable by this Justice Department, and it will certainly not be the last.”

A $13 billion settlement was reached with JPMorgan Chase in November over similar problems. Talks continue between Justice and Bank of America over a potential settlement that could surpass the one struck with JPMorgan. The task force also reached settlements with Credit Suisse and Jefferies & Co. Other financial institutions, such as Capital One, have disclosed subpoenas and ongoing investigations from the task force.

But critics have charged that the settlement figures are misleading and fall short of equaling the damage done to the economy and the amount of wealth that was wiped out in the wake of the housing market’s collapse.

DOJ has also been criticized for not bringing criminal charges against individual executives at these large banks who may have known loans in the securities they sold were riskier than advertised.

In a sign that federal authorities are becoming more aggressive, French bank BNP Paribas was forced into a rare guilty plea in federal court last week to helping clients skirt U.S. sanctions in Sudan and Iran for which it paid nearly $9 billion in fines. Credit Suisse pleaded guilty to similar charges in May.

The Citi deal did not include a guilty plea. Holder said the bank “has admitted to its misdeeds in great detail.”

“Taken together, we believe the size and scope of this resolution goes beyond what could be considered the mere cost of doing business,” Holder said of the Citi settlement.

Citigroup will release its latest earnings results later this morning, giving the bank a chance to detail the settlements impact on its bottom line.

Citigroup will take a one-time charge of $3.8 billion for the second quarter in connection with the settlement. The bank’s CEO Michael Corbat said in a statement that the bank has now resolved substantially all of its mortgage bond litigation.

“We believe that this settlement is in the best interests of our shareholders, and allows us to move forward and to focus on the future, not the past,” Corbat said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/citigroup-settles-subprime-mortgage-case-for-7b-108864.html#ixzz37S3dpn1f

Great article about the "Sweep". Rosner & Millstein are on our side IMO.

Big Banks Look To Cash In On Fannie-Freddie Reform Using Washington’s Revolving Door

Some people are saying it is just what the doctor ordered. Others are saying that the cure is worse than the disease.

The Affordable Care Act? Reengagement in Iraq? Tea Party bullying in the GOP?

Not this time. Just as protracted in the corridors of Congress and the White House is the debate over the proposed reform – and potential replacement – of the beleaguered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And InsideSources has uncovered the involvement of a former Administration official, who appears to have been involved in the discussions that shaped part of the legislation that could offer a large upside to big banks.

Although it is less on the minds of Americans in the heartland, arguably no issue has more personal impact. The result of the debate will determine many of the winners and losers in the American dream of homeownership.

It is not merely families seeking their own backyard who will be affected. The titans of the banking industry also are keenly concerned about whether they will be warmed under the protective cover of government guarantees or be left out in the cold.

A key focal point in the debate is a bill sponsored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) and ranking Republican Mike Crapo of Idaho. The Johnson-Crapo bill was voted out of committee and to the full Senate in May.

The Johnson-Crapo bill is built on the framework of legislation sponsored by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Mark Warner (D-VA). Both Johnson-Crapo and Corker-Warner would effectively wind down Fannie and Freddie, replacing them with a newly created Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation (FMIC).

While the legislation ostensibly is designed to create a new and improved path to homeownership, its proponents don’t like to talk about who would primarily benefit from its approval: the big banks, the very entities that contributed to the housing collapse in the first place. In a classic example of the cozy ties that exist in Washington between regulators and the regulated, the legislation was shaped with strong input from a number of individuals with current or recent ties to the big banks and mortgage companies.

For example, Michael Bright, Corker’s senior financial adviser since 2010, previously was a mortgage trader for Countrywide Financial and Wachovia. The two firms figured prominently in the housing collapse.

Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie investors are fighting the 2012 Third Amendment – the so-called “Sweep Amendment” – that allows the Treasury Department to seize all profits indefinitely. The restriction exists even beyond the satisfaction of Fannie and Freddie’s debt to taxpayers for the bailout.

One of those who helped shape the amendment is Jim Parrott, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute and former senior advisor at the White House’s National Economic Council. Parrott has served as a consultant for major banks. InsideSources has obtained an email strongly suggesting that Parrott played an advisory role for at least one bank, Bank of America. The email, written by a senior official at the bank, refers to a meeting with Parrott about housing finance reform. In the email, the official also asks about arranging a telephone call to provide details of the Parrott meeting.

Parrott declined to discuss his role with the banks or in the Sweep Amendment discussions when asked by InsideSources. He also chose to not comment on how his work with any banks would fit against the backdrop of the Administration’s internal rules intended to cover political appointees leaving the government.

The sweep maneuver raises even more questions about the specter of the influence of major banks on policies meant to serve the public interest.“I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV,” says financial services analyst Josh Rosner. “But I do believe it seems like it was not something done solely by the conservator.”

Whatever the twists and turns, answers to the Fannie/Freddie dilemma do not appear to be coming anytime soon.

“Given the [political] climate and how complicated the contemplated makeover of the second-largest securities market in the world is, it will be many moons before reform legislation is passed,” says Jim Millstein, chairman and CEO of Millstein & Co. Until March 2011, Millstein was the chief restructuring officer at the U.S. Department of Treasury.

Prospects for the legislation actually making it to the Senate floor, let alone passing, are highly questionable. Opposition to the particulars of the proposals, even from those who support the concept in principle, is intense.

In testimony to the Senate Banking Committee this past November, Millstein cautioned at length against too hastily putting Fannie and Freddie to rest. He tells InsideSources:

“If the new first-loss capital hasn’t been raised in size on a timetable perfectly in sync with the five-year wind down of Fannie and Freddie imposed by Corker-Warner, there could be significant contraction in the availability of mortgage credit.

“Second, the wind down has the effect of orphaning all the outstanding Fannie and Freddie mortgage-backed securities, a $4.5 trillion credit market, prices in which form the basis off of which a variety of other instruments are priced and hedged.

“As a consequence, there could be significant dislocation in interest rates not only in the mortgage credit market but in the debt markets for a variety of mortgage-related entities (e.g., mortgage REITs).”

Critics of Johnson-Crapo say the bill would hand control of the nation’s $20 trillion mortgage market to the big banks while providing them with a full government backstop to protect against any potential losses. The legislation also comes at the expense of tens of thousands of investors who hold stock in Fannie and Freddie.

One outspoken critic is Rosner, managing director of Graham Fisher & Co. and co-author of “Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon” (Times Books, 2011). The book targets the individuals who, the authors argue, played pivotal roles in the financial meltdown.

The government’s entire approach to Fannie and Freddie is misguided, Rosner tells InsideSources.

“Rather than label Fannie and Freddie as GSEs (government-sponsored enterprises), we should treat them as public utilities – much like water, electric and sewer – and regulate them properly,” he says. “We need to depoliticize these institutions.

“Public utilities exist to make sure the public interests are served,” he adds. “Instead, we have the banks licking their chops like Elmer Fudd does every time he sees Bugs Bunny. They’re hoping to capture not only the primary but the secondary market.”

Rosner would keep the basic structures of Fannie and Freddie intact either through conservatorship (allowing them to raise private capital to sufficient levels) or receivership (re-chartering replacement entities that look like the GSEs with proper regulatory structures.)

“You could call them Jimmy and Sue,” he says. “I don’t care. Just fix them and support the mission they were originally conceived to perform, to support adequate liquidity in the primary mortgage market.”

Which route would he take?

“I am agnostic,” he says. “I just think we need to recognize that Fannie and Freddie are not the problem. The problem is our failure to regulate them and to insure the separation of the primary and secondary markets.”

Millstein’s formula for fixing Fannie and Freddie, at least on an interim basis, is similar.

“They need to be allowed to build capital so as to allow them at a minimum to be able credibly to back the $4.5 trillion of securities of theirs that will remain outstanding for decades to come,” he says, “and to create a capital cushion between the underlying mortgages and the U.S. taxpayers who are on the hook for those mortgage-backed securities until they are retired.”

As the lobbying and posturing continue in the corridors, Rosner holds hope that changes in Senate leadership – he believes Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) offer promise – could prompt a solution. “They both understand the issue, they are not terribly ideological about it, and they could work together.”

Besides, he says, “I am hoping that at some point rational thinking comes back into fashion.”

New Order on the Fairholme case just posted.
Anyone with PACER please post the doc.
TIA

1:13-cv-00465 FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et al v. USA
Today, July 10, 2014, 48 minutes ago Go to full article
[Order] (68)

Order 68

New Order on the Fairholme case just posted.
Anyone with PACER please post the doc.
TIA

1:13-cv-00465 FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et al v. USA
Today, July 10, 2014, 18 minutes agoGo to full article
[Order] (68)

Order 68

Senate confirms Shaun Donovan to run OMB

By SEUNG MIN KIM | 7/10/14 2:36 PM EDT

President Barack Obama has a new budget chief.

On a 75-22 vote, the Senate confirmed Shaun Donovan as the new director of the White House Office of Management and Budget on Thursday — putting him in the middle of Washington’s perpetual fight over government spending.

Donovan, 48, has led the Department of Housing and Urban Development since the beginning of the Obama administration.

His move to the White House budget office is a part of a broader game of musical chairs by administration officials. Donovan will take over for Sylvia Mathews Burwell, who left OMB to lead the Department of Health and Human Services following the resignation of Kathleen Sebelius.

In turn, Donovan will be replaced at HUD by San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro, who was confirmed to the position on Wednesday with a 71-26 vote.

Donovan’s easy confirmation was expected. His nomination was cleared with overwhelming majorities last month by two Senate committees.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/shaun-donovan-confirmed-white-house-office-of-management-and-budget-108770.html#ixzz3768PYdbU

You can wax poetic all you want. I watched Castro's testimony under oath LIVE and on other occasions and no where does he say he "wants to do away with FnF". Matter of fact, he was very careful to be noncommittal on the subject. A Politic at his finest.

Have a nice day and carry on with your agenda.

Link doesn't open, but I assume you're referring to the article by Elvina Nawaguna. I have already read it several times and no where does it quote Castro as saying "he wants to do away with FnF".

Nice try though.

Again, show me the many different times the words "I want to do away with FnF" have come out of Castro's mouth. I'll be waiting.

Here's a link to the Partnership to Strengthen Homeownership Act of 2014
Better known as the Piece of SH_t Act.
That is, if anyone would actually like to read through this 113 page snooze-fest.

Although it falls way short, I do like that shareholders fare a little better than previous efforts, still, there's no way it passes.

Could you please provide the various links to show the "many occasions" HIS actual words state "that he wants to do away with FnF". I'm not looking for writer embellishment here, just actual quotes.

TIA

We shall see...the devil is in the details, as they say. Hopefully some positive changes for FnF have been made in the bill since it's first discussion back in the spring.

BIG NEWS!
Jon Prior @JonAPrior · 25m
House Dems to intro housing bill today that would allow slimmer Fannie, Freddie to become private firms again in time http://politico.pro/LxfZ5V

Jon Prior Twitter

I don't have Politico Pro account so I can't post the entire article. If anyone does, feel free to post it.

Let's not forget this guy....

2:00 - 2:50 p.m. KEYNOTE
John Paulson, Founder and Managing Partner, Paulson & Co. Inc.
Interviewed by: Melissa Lee, Host of "Fast Money" & "Options Action," CNBC

10bambam, maybe you'll like this one better! Also, there's a nice little remark from our friend Bill Maloni in the comments section.

Julian Castro confirmed as secretary of Housing and Urban Development

By JON PRIOR | 7/9/14 12:47 PM EDT

The Senate voted Wednesday to confirm San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro as secretary of Housing and Urban Development, putting the rising political star in the middle of the thorny debate over housing policy and providing him with a platform to boost his national profile. The vote was 71-26.

Castro, 39, was nominated for the job by President Barack Obama in May and had a smooth path to confirmation, garnering Republican support and facing little to no opposition in the Senate.

The cabinet post will give Castro, considered a potential vice presidential pick for the 2016 ticket, a chance to forge a presence in Washington and build relationships with officials across the country, given HUD’s role in helping cities with affordable housing and urban development projects.

But Castro will face difficult policy decisions in the new position as well.

The housing market’s recovery has slowed this year as borrowers with less than pristine credit have found it difficult to qualify for home loans. Meanwhile, renters have seen their wages stagnate and the amount of affordable apartments dry up.

“I see out there the urgency for more affordable housing opportunities in our urban communities in San Antonio but throughout the nation,” Castro said at a Senate Banking Committee hearing last month.

As HUD Secretary, Castro will oversee the Federal Housing Administration, which insures mortgages typically for lower-income and minority home buyers and also provides financing for rental projects. Castro is expected to work both with housing advocates and industry officials to figure out how to free up credit both in the short and long-term so that it is easier to get a mortgage and financing for apartment developments.

One of Castro’s first challenges could be budgetary. The FHA had to take an unprecedented $1.7 billion infusion of taxpayer cash last year to cover a short fall in its insurance fund that was created mostly by home loans the agency backed during the housing market’s downturn from 2007 to 2009.

Republicans seized on the shortfall as evidence of a government program run amok and the House Financial Services Committee has held a series of hearings this Congress slamming the agency.

While the White House estimated earlier this year that the FHA had shored up its balance sheet and would avoid another draw from taxpayers, the agency won’t know whether policy changes, such as certain insurance premium hikes, were enough until the end of this fiscal year in September.

The rub is that any retreat from the mortgage market by FHA to shore up its finances also makes it harder for low-income and first time buyers to get a loan.

Castro will be under pressure from Democrats and housing advocates to find ways to make sure more loans are available while avoiding another shortfall that will provide ammunition for Republicans looking to hit the Obama administration.

“The health of the FHA has been the subject of tremendous scrutiny and debate,” Castro said at the hearing last month. “I believe that there can be action taken to ensure that FHA stays on a positive track. My understanding is that it is on a much more positive track than it has been.”

Castro will replace Shaun Donovan, who has been nominated to head the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Castro could also find himself in the middle of the debate over what to do with government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were bailed out by the government in 2008 but have since returned to profitability and returned the amount of taxpayer funds they received.

Legislation to get rid of the mortgage finance giants has advanced through both the Senate Banking and House Financial Services committees this Congress, but the bills are not expected to receive floor votes in either chamber this year.

Fannie and Freddie don’t fall directly under Castro’s jurisdiction, but as a top housing official for the administration it will be difficult for him to avoid the debate over what role the government should play in the mortgage finance system, a complicated policy dilemma that directly affects almost any borrower seeking to buy a home.

The administration earlier this year backed a bipartisan plan in the Senate that was opposed by some liberals worried it didn’t do enough on affordable housing and would give big banks too big of a role in the system that would replace Fannie and Freddie, which do not make loans but purchase mortgages and package them into bonds that are sold to investors to provide the funding for new loans.

Castro was careful in his answers during his June confirmation hearing.

“I do believe that the status quo is not in the best interest of Americans,” he said.. “It would be preferable for the taxpayers not to be in the position of first loss and that the current conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie is not sustainable for the long term.”


William Maloni • 42 minutes ago
With regard to Fannie and Freddie (and his political aspirations), I hope Secretary Castro stays out of Director Mel Watt's way. He's making a mistake if he thinks that diminishing Fannie and Freddie is any sort of political winner, since the big banks don't want the job unless heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
This soup doesn't need a second chef stirring the pot.