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.
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Announces Reversal of Plans to Wind Down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Early last week, recently-appointed director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Melvin L. Watt, announced plans to keep GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going strong. This new strategy is in stark contrast to the express goals of his predecessor Edward J. DeMarco, White House officials and other proposed legislation, such as the Housing Opportunities Move the Economy (HOME) Forward Act of 2014, that was aimed at dismantling the GSEs and shifting mortgage-lending risks back to the private sector. In his first speech as leader of the FHFA, Watt presented FHFA’s Strategic Plan for 2014, in which he stressed the Agency’s plan “to manage the present status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” and maintain the dominance of those companies in the mortgage-lending market.
Watt explained that the reversal of Agency plans for GSE wind-down “is motivated by concerns about how such a reduction could adversely impact the health of the current housing finance market.” Rather than do away with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Watt plans to strengthen those entities by improving market liquidity and loan-servicing standards. The Strategic Plan details include such measures as relaxation of the payment-history requirements for acquiring loans, quality control reviews, eliminating automatic loan-repurchase demands caused by mortgage-insurance rescission, clarification of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s respective underwriting standards and the development of cure mechanisms for loan defects–rather than permitting the GSEs to simply insist on lender repurchase of defaulted loans as has been the case since the advent of the mortgage meltdown.
Notably, FHFA plans still include the goal of reducing taxpayer risk by expanding the role of private investment in the mortgage-lending market.
The proposed HOME Forward bill, currently pending approval by the Senate Banking Committee, was introduced last month by the Housing Financial Services Committee in an effort to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a period of five years. While the bill is expected to pass the committee, Watt’s new direction in FHFA strategy makes it likely that HOME Forward will lose support and momentum, and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may be here to stay for much longer than expected
That was a "yessss. Is it hot in here"?
One day in prison per share...I am in trouble
Santelli Neunbauer cnbc exchange link
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/this-no-brainer-stock-could-quadruple-cm354298
This 'No-Brainer' Stock Could Quadruple
By StreetAuthority, May 19, 2014, 11:00:00 AM EDT
A A A
Vote up
loading
Comment
More Sharing Services
Share |
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email
Share on print
Every once in a while the markets hand you an investment that practically screams buy or sell.
#-ad_banner-#Unfortunately, it's usually only in hindsight that it becomes so obvious... but once in a while, the market gives you the clues that an investment could go much higher. The investors savvy enough to catch on are anointed gurus as the rest of us wonder why we didn't see the writing on the wall.
While some of these "no-brainer" investments jump spectacularly, leaving little opportunity for later investors to profit, others are more gradual in their rise.
While shares of this company have more than doubled since my colleague David Goodboy highlighted the opportunity in last June ( and again in December ), the investment I'm thinking of could still have much higher to go -- and soon.
Too Big To Scale
In its most explicit acknowledgement yet that talk of winding down the Federal National Mortgage Association ( FNMA ) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. ( FMCC ) -- or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as they're more commonly known -- is futile, the key regulator for the government-supported enterprises (GSEs) recently said it would not reduce the size of the mortgages the firms can buy.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency also said it would ease standards for when banks must buy back faulty loans, called put-back provisions. Rules on put-backs have been a sticking point for banks in easing credit standards for borrowers because they feared they would eventually have to buy the loan back from Fannie or Freddie.
The regulator's announcement only makes it clearer that Washington is in no hurry to limit the role the GSEs play in the housing market (in fact, its announcements expand their role). Whether reform is needed or not, Fannie and Freddie are not going anywhere.
The fact is that housing needs the GSEs to support the $5 trillion market for mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Last year, the GSEs bought 61% of the residential mortgage-backed securities originated; banks held about 38%. Private-label MBS issuers accounted for less than 1% of the market, well below their 30% share before the collapse of the housing bubble.
Does anyone really believe the private sector is able or willing to step in to fill the gap left by Fannie or Freddie if they were limited?
For better or worse, the immense size of the GSEs and their relationship with the government lowers mortgage interest rates and opens up homeownership to millions of Americans. This role would be incredibly difficult for the private sector to fill.
A Guru Makes His Pitch
Hedge fund guru Bill Ackman released a 111-slide investor presentation this month detailing the issue and arguing that Fannie Mae could be worth as much as 10 times its current share price. Ackman's Hedge Fund Pershing Square Capital Management holds a 10% stake in the GSEs.
The average fee Fannie Mae charges to lenders to back new loans increased last year to 0.37% from a long-term average around 0.22% since 1990. The FHFA has required that the GSEs increase these fees to help private issuers be more competitive in the MBS market -- and Ackman argues that the guarantee fees will need to be increased to at least 0.60% for private issuers to be profitable and attract new suppliers into the MBS market.
Even at the current level of guarantee fees, Fannie Mae could post earnings in excess of $11 billion and may be worth as much as $14 per share on a price-to-earnings (P/E) multiple of 14. Ackman estimates that if the guarantee fees were raised further, to between 0.60% and 1%, the stock would be worth somewhere between $23 and $47 a share.
Dividends For Shareholders, Not Uncle Sam
Currently, Fannie and Freddie are required to pay out all earnings to the U.S. Treasury in what's called the net worth sweep, which means that shareholders really own only the hope that the GSEs will come out of conservatorship.
Through March of this year, the GSEs have paid dividends of $203 billion to the government, well in excess of the $187 billion received during the crisis. I expect the courts will ultimately require the government to end the net worth sweep -- and start sharing the right to earnings with investors.
Shares of Fannie Mae trade on a significant discount due to the net worth sweep and fears that the GSE may yet have its mandate limited. I think it's highly unlikely that the government will be able to scale back the entities in any significant way -- and I further expect the shares could start trading closer to their fair value as early as next year.
Risks to Consider: Both GSEs are still in conservatorship and are required to distribute 100% of earnings to the Treasury. Shareholders have filed lawsuits the matter may not see resolution for some time. Short-term movement in the push to wind down the two entities could weigh on share prices but the upside potential should remain intact over the long term.
Action to Take --> It seems that the government has no plan for winding down Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac and regulators have the mortgage giants expanding their role in the market. Shares could go much higher as the housing market continues to recover and uncertainty is reduced around the GSEs. I am setting a buy-under price for Fannie Mae of $6 a share and a target price of $20.
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/this-no-brainer-stock-could-quadruple-cm354298#ixzz32BHzc9lL
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/this-no-brainer-stock-could-quadruple-cm354298
Maloni's blog
http://malonigse.blogspot.com/
Read this garbage
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Profits Up For Grabs?
by Clayton BrowneMay 19, 2014, 12:35 pm
Matthew Yglesias says hedge funds are out to rip off taxpayers in trying to "reprivatize" Fannie and Freddie
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this page
According to Matthew Yglesias of Vox, four hedge fund managers — Bill Ackman, Bruce Berkowitz, John Paulson and Richard Perry — are leading the charge (along with consumer advocate Ralph Nader) to re-privatize Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC) so they can make obscene profits off the back of taxpayers.
Yglesias’ article makes some persuasive arguments, and contains more than a small measure of truth, but ultimately fails to be persuasive given the one-sided nature of its argumentation.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac profitable today
The key point here is that Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC) have both become profitable in the current low interest rate macro-environment and given federal guarantees of their debt. A modest, if regionally spotty, revival in the housing market has also helped the government-sponsored enterprises swing yo a profit over the last year or two. Analysts also point out that Fannie and Freddie are likely to be cash cows for some years to come given the slow recovery mode of the U.S. economy.
Hedge fund’s plan
The stock of Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC) dropped to just pennies a share after the 2008-2009 financial crisis and the government bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, both companies continued to trade “over the counter” as a penny stock.
As Yglesias puts it, “Buying a share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was essentially taking a flier on the proposition that the government would, in the future and for no particular reason, start paying out dividends to whoever bought the worthless stock.”
He points out that this situation attracted the attention of a few hedge fund titans who thought they might just have the political muscle to make re-privatization of Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC) a reality.
Yglesias says that these hedge funds bought up a good chunk of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares, and are now — along with other GSE shareholders including Ralph Nader — are trying to convince either courts or Congress to give them the profits being spun off. The GSE shareholders argue that rather than the profits going to the Treasury, the profits should stack up in Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC)’s accounts and then the GSEs should be “re-privatized” to create a functioning mortgage market. Yglesias says this is basically an attempt by the GSE shareholders to rip off the taxpayers as they have no legal or moral claim to the money.
What is fair?
While it is certainly true that the government bailed out Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC), and should therefore be enjoying the lion’s share of any future profits, GSE shareholders should have some “rights” in terms of the value of their original investment, so completely locking them out also seems unfair.
From my perspective, only original (pre-bailout) shareholders who held on should be considered to receive some small percentage any current or future profits. Those like the hedge funds who bought Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC) shares as an investment at a later date should not, however, be allowed to profit from the taxpayers investment, and should just be paid out at the price they paid for the shares or a very modest profit.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/05/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-profits-grabs/
I think Bove thinks that it is worth $20.00 right now. Not including restoration, winning lawsuit, uplisting, dividends
yes sir! Illegal! Extortion!
I usually hate Santelli and I know that he wants FnF gone but he just got a congressman on cnbc to admit that housing industry has been nationalized by the conservatorship of FnF. IMO
Santelli fnf cnbc now
Make a loan, any loan, to any home buyer for any amount.
Sell the loan to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac so it's the government's problem if it's never paid back.
This is what helped trigger the 2008 financial collapse. But last week, Melvin Watt, the new head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, said he wouldn't reduce limits on the size of mortgages that these government-owned mortgage giants guarantee. He also said he would loosen rules that obligated mortgage lenders to buy back any distressed loans they sell to Fannie and Freddie.
"Our overriding objective is to ensure that there is broad liquidity in the housing finance market," he explained in a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington. He said his decision "is motivated by concerns about . . . the health of the current housing-finance market."
Democrats and Republicans are still fighting about what to do with Fannie and Freddie, but these agencies still stand behind two-thirds of all mortgages in the nation's $10 trillion mortgage market.
Before the financial collapse, they were supposedly private enterprises. But the government took them over once it was clear they were headed for bankruptcy. Their bailout cost $190 billion. Since then, Fannie and Freddie have paid about $ 200 billion in dividends to the government -- a profit for taxpayers.
Never mind that their turnarounds came from the same funny-money finance that reanimated all of America's zombie banks: zero interest rates and tens of billions of dollars in monthly bond purchases from the Federal Reserve.
Now, Fannie and Freddie are feeling flush and want to stay in the game until Congress tells them otherwise. A bill to overhaul them passed a Senate committee on Thursday -- but it's unlikely to go much further in an election year.
You see, without Fannie and Freddie backing a lot of loans, the U.S. economy could slip back into a recession.
The so-called housing-market recovery has already hit a wall. Experts are content to blame this year's dip in existing-home sales on the weather. But here's the bigger picture: Home ownership levels fell to 64.8% in the first quarter, the lowest in 19 years.
For the last half-decade, college graduates have left school with huge debts and bleak job prospects. Students and graduates owe more than $1.2 trillion. The last thing many young people need is mortgage debt on top of student debt.
What economists call "household formation" has nose-dived. The number of households established in the U.S. has dipped by about 800,000 a year since the 2007-09 recession, according to a paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, hitting some of the lowest levels since World War II.
Millions of Americans remain without jobs. Millions more have found new jobs that pay less. Millions more are retiring as the baby-boom generation enters its golden age.
Who needs a mortgage? RealtyTrac, a real-estate data provider, reports that 43% of all homes sold in the first three months of this year were all-cash deals.
Wealthy investors and giant buyout firms such as Blackstone have been scooping up all the distressed homes -- so there have been few deals for average home buyers to be had.
Fannie and Freddie can try to juice the market now, but there may not be much demand left for home loans.
The story of America's mortgage crisis ends like this: The rich got richer and the poor will rent from them.
---
Al Lewis is a columnist based in Denver. He blogs at tellittoal.com; his email address is al.lewis@tellittoal.com
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/mortgages-for-the-masses--als-emporium-20140519-00191
Motley Fool
Should You Buy Preferred Shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
This article is part of a series of articles that looks at Fannie Mae (NASDAQOTCBB: FNMA ) and Freddie Mac (NASDAQOTCBB: FMCC ) from an investment perspective. To read the full analysis, click here.
Before the crisis, preferred stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was seen as a safe income security.
As such, conservative investors and small banks purchased it. But when the GSEs melted down and required a bailout, preferred stock dividend payments were suspended and have yet to be resumed.
Since the preferred stock available to private investors is junior to the senior preferred stock owned by the government, the junior preferred stock is in a similar situation as the common stock in that it provides no dividend and is not directly benefiting from the rebound in profits.
Most series of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stock have liquidation values of $25 or $50 and trade at between $0.30 and $0.40 per dollar of liquidation value. Much of the difference in current value has to do with the original dividend rate on the series despite the dividend being suspended and non-cumulative.
Risks and potential return
If the plaintiffs lose their cases against the government, then the preferred stock is unlikely to have much value.
As previously discussed, most politicians favor a wind down of the GSEs leaving preferred shareholders in line after the massive senior preferred stock stake from the government. And until the current situation changes, the preferred stock pays no dividend and the GSEs would not be able to reinstate one.
But if the plaintiffs can succeed in ending the net worth sweep, returns for the preferred stock would be significant. All series would move back toward liquidation value since Fannie and Freddie themselves are solvent although some lingering market fears may cause a slight discount to liquidation value to occur.
As with other preferred stocks and income investments, preferred stock series with a higher yield would trade at a higher multiple to liquidation than lower yielding series.
Although I own the common stock and not the preferred stock of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I understand the possibility of significant upside, coupled with major risks, to owning the preferred.
With the liquidation value defined, the preferred stock has a fairly well established upper value. Additionally, if the GSEs can begin returning profits to private investors, the preferred stocks should begin paying the dividends defined in their prospectuses.
The fate of the preferred stockholders is largely correlated with that of the common stockholders but the preferred stockholders do have two key advantages in a liquidation or wind down.
One is that they are ahead of the common stockholders in line for payment. This means anything left over from a wind down or liquidation, after the government's stake is repaid, will go to the preferred stockholders.
The second advantage is that the liquidation value clearly defines what the preferred stock should receive.
So if the GSEs have been dismantled by the time of a final ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, it would be easier for the court to determine what value the preferred stockholders should receive while the common shareholder value would require other formulas to be used leaving it more up in the air.
While upside of 100% to 200% is still very good, the common stock still has greater potential upside. This is because preferred stockholders are only entitled to liquidation value plus dividends while the common stockholders can share the remainder of the profits which, in the case of Fannie and Freddie, are quite large.
The bottom line
Preferred stock is generally seen as a safer income investment but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stock is far from a safe income investment. Although it's still a lower risk investment than the common stock, the preferred stock currently has no dividend and its investors are relying on favorable legal or political developments to see any value at all.
If you do choose to go with the preferred stock, you'd be in good company. Bruce Berkowitz's Fairholme Funds owns preferred and common stock and Perry Capital owns the preferred stock as well.
There are also many series of preferreds at both Fannie and Freddie and each has its own liquidation value, yield, and daily trading volume. If you are considering the preferred stock, it is definitely worth the time to go through and pick out the series that best fits with your investment strategy.
Top dividend stocks for the next decade
The smartest investors know that dividend stocks simply crush their non-dividend paying counterparts over the long term. That’s beyond dispute. They also know that a well-constructed dividend portfolio creates wealth steadily, while still allowing you to sleep like a baby. Knowing how valuable such a portfolio might be, our top analysts put together a report on a group of high-yielding stocks that should be in any income investor’s portfolio. To see our free report on these stocks, just click here now.
This article is part of a series of articles that looks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from an investment perspective. To read the full analysis, click here.
Alexander MacLennan owns common shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This article is not an endorsement to buy or sell any security and does not constitute professional investment advice. Always do your own due diligence before buying or selling any security. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/05/19/should-you-buy-preferred-shares-of-fannie-mae-and.aspx
Repeat from yesterday from Reuters
sorry didn't realize it but I already copied and pasted.
U.S. private lenders not ready to replace Fannie, Freddie: regulator
(Reuters) - The regulator of government-controlled mortgage finance firms Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) said on Sunday he would not oppose them having a smaller presence in the market but private capital had to be ready to take over first.
Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mel Watt said the two companies, which own or guarantee about 60 percent of all U.S. home loans, needed to remain in the housing finance market to make sure it was liquid and resilient.
Watt said last week, in his first public speech since taking office, that he did not want to shrink Fannie and Freddie's footprint, marking a sharp departure from his predecessor.
"It's not that I'm opposed to it and we will certainly allow it to happen," he told C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program, when asked about the prospect of shrinking the lenders' activities.
"But if the private sector is not ready to step into the space, and you shrink what Fannie and Freddie are doing, you do damage to housing finance in this country and that does damage to the economy and that does damage to the possibility of affordable housing and home ownership."
Watt said on May 13 he would hold off on a proposed reduction in the size of loans the firms can buy and scrap plans to reduce the financing they provide for apartment building loans.
He said on Sunday he had not discussed his policy plans with the White House before the speech.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have returned bumper profits recently, driven mainly by income from legal settlements, but Watt said these would not continue forever.
"The record level of profits that Fannie and Freddie have had over the last couple of years certainly are not sustainable because they result in large part from large settlements of litigation," Watt said.
HEALTHY RETURNS
Under their bailout terms, profits are paid to the Treasury as dividends on the controlling stake the government took when it seized the mortgage lenders at the height of the financial crisis in 2008.
They will have returned $213.1 billion to taxpayers by the end of June, more than the aid they received.
Watt said the agencies, which the White House and lawmakers from both parties have said they eventually want to wind down, were not constrained by the arrangement with the administration.
He said he was willing to talk about changing the rules stemming from the bailout but was happy with taxpayer backing.
"I don't think that's a bottomless pit or a bucket that can never be drained ... but right now it's not creating problems for them to operate," he said.
(Reporting by Krista Hughes and Tim Ahmann; Editing by Jim Loney and Sophie Hares)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/18/us-usa-housing-idUSBREA3N1T820140518
The Fannie and Freddie Reform Logjam: A Step Toward a Grand Bargain
The prospect for reform of the government-sponsored housing finance enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has taken a giant step backward, despite the fact that the bipartisan bill proposed by Senators Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and designed to shift their role to new private entities, managed to clear the Senate Banking Committee last week. The limited support among committee Democrats means the bill is unlikely to come to a full Senate vote and has, in effect, suffered death by a thousand cuts. Non-profit home-ownership advocacy groups on the Left feared that incentives for private versions of the two government-sponsored enterprises to extend credit to so-called “underserved” groups would not be as effective as the affordable housing mandates which force Fannie and Freddie to purchase mortgages made to low-income and minority buyers. Their view likely influenced recalcitrant committee Democrats. Even had it had such support, the bill faced looming House opposition from those who argued (as have I) that affordable mandates would lead to easy credit—and a repeat of the 2008 housing foreclosure and delinquency crisis, with the poor themselves most at risk. Just to make things even more complicated, the bill also suffered because of a split on the Left, as a range of other housing non-profits, including the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, supported the bill because of its encouragement of more low-income rental housing.
These developments remind us that, as in some many parts of American life, the non-profit sector has come both to depend financially on government for revenue (affordable housing rely on affordable housing mandates, as well as tax credit financing) and to see policy advocacy as much of its raison d’tre. But they also mean, as regards housing policy, that the course of least resistance is now an unhappy one: the status quo ante. Fannie and Freddie would continue, with some level of affordable housing mandates—perhaps higher rather than lower given the recently-expressed preference of Federal Housing Finance Director Mel Watt, who oversees the mortgage giants, for less-strict mortgage underwriting guidelines
http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardhusock/2014/05/19/the-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-reform-logjam-one-step-toward-a-grand-bargain/
Unfortunately we have elections every two years around here. What an a** Corker is. Unfortunate for him but fortunate for U.S. citizens.
EVERYONE NEEDS TO HEAR THIS
It may be old news to some but everyone needs to hear this!!
I just heard it for the first time.
thank you heat02 post #217887
This is a link to the interview with Charles J Cooper at The Federalist Society on 20 Feb. 2014. He is the founding partner at Cooper and Kirk law firm representing Fairholme. This guy explains the whole Lawsuit in progress.
http://www.fed-soc.org/audiolib/freddieandfannieshareholderlawsuit-2-21-14.mp3
There is also a link imbedded here in the highlighted word interview.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2224103-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-are-undercapitalized
Big Yank
Your posts on this board are full of liberal media propaganda, statements inconsistent with known facts, conjecture, exaggeration, speculation, presumptions, suppositions, falsehoods, fabrications and out right fantasy. Other than that you are a valuable member with useful contributions. We are very informed group, aware of a lot factual information and learning more all the time. You seem too intelligent to post like this.
Have a happy Sunday.
what is the link to this info? It could already be on ihub but I just woke up. thanks
net profit sweeps = extortion
Extortion
111 11.5K
Download article as PDF Download article as a PDF
Extortion is the crime of obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right.
What is Extortion?
Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action. While usually viewed as a form of theft/larceny, extortion differs from robbery in that the threat in question does not pose an imminent physical danger to the victim.
Extortion is a felony in all states. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing and damaging information to family, friends, or the public. Inherent in this common form of extortion is the threat to expose the details of someone's private lives to the public unless money is exchanged. Another common extortion crime is offering "protection" to a businessman to keep his business safe from burglary or vandalism. For example, Dan goes to Victor's place of business and demands monthly payment from Victor for the business's "protection" from vandalism and after-hours theft. Fearing that he or his business will suffer harm otherwise, Victor agrees to pay Dan.
Extortion can take place over the telephone, via mail, text, email or other computer or wireless communication. If any method of interstate commerce is used in the extortion, it can be a federal crime.
Extortion statutes
Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act.
Other types of threats sufficient to constitute extortion include those to harm the victim's business and those to either testify against the victim or withhold testimony necessary to his or her defense or claim in an administrative proceeding or a lawsuit. Many statutes also provide that any threat to harm another person in his or her career or reputation is extortion
- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/extortion.html#sthash.IKaWKI4a.dpuf
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/extortion.html
Yes there again the government is there to protect FnF. Why should share holders collect dividends. The savior is there to provide us all with homes.
Mel Watt just reads his script. "Protect the tax payer. Not concerned with shareholders (hedge funds)". This strategy of being the tax payer savior from evil corporate greed keeps him and the puppeteer(White House) looking like the government is protecting the sheeple. That way nobody will notice the slight of hand (net profit sweep). Unfortunately we share holders did notice so now it is time to demonize us share holders as if we are all evil greedy hedge fund managers. An elaborate scheme of misdirection. Meanwhile the theft will continue. Many of the sheeple won't even care if the rich share holders (us evil hedge fund managers) stop recieving dividends. After all we are each billionares already. Obama the savior. The modern day Robin Hood.
Like some posted when this was first reported. John Grisham novel
I read an article or two before about this but it just clicked. Demarco hires Hornesby in 2011. Net profit sweep in 2012. Law suits 2013. Hornsby freaks and gets arrested in 2014. Now let your imaginations run wild. Mine is.
Thanks. I saved that post.
Trying to do my part. Bought little brother today @$4.09 to even them up. But now I am out of powder. Guess I will sell something else soon to free up cash.
It isn't fair but Watt is playing it smart. The net profit sweep has not been declared illegal in a court of law. Even though I think all on this board know it is illegal. I will use your analogy. When your neibor or friend ended up with your lawnmower because he bought your stolen property you would take him to court to prove that it was stolen from you and for you to be made whole. See the similarity to fairholme/perry vs. Uncle sam? Watt must wait for Judge (Judy) Sweeny to make a verdict that the net profit sweep is illegal. It isn't easy being a white house puppet.
Let's not forget about uplisting. It completes the hat trick. Then dividends, the icing on the cake.
Well stated
It seems perfectly answered to me. Put yourself in Watt's shoes. He knows that when the chit hits the fan he doesn't want to get any on him. You know, ( It wasn't me. It was those other guys. I just got here and I don't know nuthin.)
I don't think it will be bad if the meeting is not necessary. Judge(Judy)Sweeny said that they could be skipped if mutually agreed upon by both parties. The first was skipped if I recall correctly so the plaintiff's must have fallen for the defendants line of bull that they would be forthcoming with the required documentation and information. Then in the second meeting which did take place the plaintiffs complained that defendants refused to comply with discovery. The judge(Judy)Sweeny slapped the defendants around and told them that they will comply at which time defendants whined about getting the protective order ( I think that is what it is called ). Then Judge(Judy)Sweeny said this a citizens court and the citizens will have their day in court. She told the defendants that her court has jurisdiction and the defendants will comply. o.k. so if they cancel the next meeting everything is going smoothly for the plaintiffs. If they have the meeting there could be some more fireworks. I plan on fireworks because the government's only plan is to stall and Judge(Judy)Sweeny already warned them.
I think that Navy Commander's graphic photo of cranial rectumitis applies to the white house in this situation. There is no cure!!!!
Just for giggles I looked at the fnma one year chart. It really is something that any company would be extremely proud of. Just look how well the chart looks in spite of all of the manipulation by press, mms, senate, fhfa, illegal taking (net profit sweeps)and the white house. I don't read charts well but just look at it. She and her brother just keep marching up the hill, get knocked down and start marching up that $20.00 hill again. We have not been up there yet but soon we will. after that we can start up $50.00 Everest. I haven't been in it for a year so I didn't feel that early pain when it dumped but I was here to feel the last big one. Congrats to all who have held through the big dumps and relatively smaller dips.
I bought more of fannies little brother today at$4.09. I feel pretty good now . What is wrong with me? I am like an FnF addict. Position in both growing little by little but for now the junkie is out of money to buy more.
I added today. Didn't catch the bottom but close. Felt like selling so I bought a little. Maybe abounce tomorrow.
That's funny I guess I am not a Klingon but I am a cling on.
I agree a great day to buy. the DOW is down 190. All of my watch lists are bleeding except batteries for some reason. I chose to buy more fnma.
The federal court/Judge(Judy)Sweeny will determine if the net profit sweeps are legal. not the jokers in the senate, treasury, FHFA or the white house. The time for sweeping it all under the rug is long past with so many law suits pending on top of the current lawsuit. Release from conservatorship will not effect the judges decision on the net profit sweeps being an illegal taking.
Thank you obit. I was researching and trying to find out the process before you responded. You were faster.
He told them to load up last night. He knew what the vote would be.