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.
It's quite disturbing really. It's made me second guess my thesis.
More info about it: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-20/pdf/2011-15098.pdf
All that's required to justify recievership is for liabilities to outweigh assets. After that happens, a Limited-Life Regulated Entity is automatically created.
Each state is definitely different.
Something you probably didn't know.
Upon recievership of the GSE's, HERA requires that a Limited Life Regulated Entity be created that will immediately succeed to the charter of the respective GSE. This new entity will function exactly like Fannie Mae with shareholders.
‘‘(2) CHARTER AND ESTABLISHMENT.— ‘‘(A) TRANSFER OF CHARTER.—
‘‘(i) FANNIE MAE.—If the Agency is appointed as receiver for the Federal National Mortgage Association, the limited-life regulated entity established under this subsection with respect to such enterprise shall, by operation of law and immediately upon its organization—
‘‘(I) succeed to the charter of the Federal National Mortgage Association, as set forth in the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act; and
‘‘(II) thereafter operate in accordance with, and subject to, such charter, this Act, and any other provision of law to which the Federal National Mortgage Association is subject, except as otherwise provided in this subsection."
What do you think? Will this open a window for the companies to wipe out common shareholders and start fresh, or does this prevent the likelihood of recievership because such a recievership would automatically create the exact same business model that is being accused of failing?
Everything works out in relation. Only way to beat that is to purchase stocks a stressed valuations and sell when they've reached intrinsic value. Do that and you'll be fine.
In the long term, it's always gone up. We've never not been able to recover.
I'm sure a dip will occur, but not until 5 - 7 percent Fed rates.
Absolutely. However, the more dollar amount they insure, the more g-fee revenue it produces.
Ex: 1% on 10 homes selling for $100k each = $10,000
1% on 3 homes selling for $350k each = $10,500
The increase in share price started to transpire at 10am on Tuesday. Maybe it was just a coincidence it was just a few minutes after the ICBA released their recommendation for the GSE's.
Home sales have increased and 30-year interest rates have increased. That equals increase in g-fee revenue.
Do you believe the price of a stock certificate is ultimately represented by the value of the underlying business it represents, or do you believe this inherent value is derived primarily through a different means?
Chaffetz introduced virtually the same bill in 2011. He's been trying to get it passed for years.
I agree with your points, which is why I purchased preferreds rather than commons.
Nothing wrong with owning both. Nothing secure by owning only commons.
He hasn't. Never mind my post. I was thinking of Berkowitz while writing about Paulson. Tried to delete but the time expired.
Do you think John Paulson, who's managed Trump's money for many years and is an economic advisor to the President, has any influence on the matter? In his annual shareholders letter, Mr. Paulson has been one of the few that has stated he believes the GSE's will be released the end of 2017. Do you believe it's a pure coincidence that Mnuchin was interviewed yesterday morning and stated the GSE's will be addressed the second half of 2017?
Paulson manages $3b. Over $1.2b of it is invested in the GSE's. He is by far the largest GSE shareholder, even though his investment isn't recorded for SEC purposes because he's not required to disclose, and the top 10 holders are consolidated from those who are required to report; and those who were required to report prior to conservatorship, or voluntarily elected to do so (Ackman).
Chaffetz has tried to do it in the past. He didn't recieve proper support. In 2011, he introduced H.R. 463 "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Transparency Act of 2011".
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily affect the DTA that was already on the books prior to 2008.
I wasn't trying to assume you were a short. Was just noting my contention with the subject, not you specifically. I own preferreds. My risk exposure is much different than commons.
I agree. The costs will be de minimus because of several factors. One of them primarily to do with the company not being in conservatorship for much longer and the H.R. 1694 only permits FOIA requests of the GSE's during the time in conservatorship. It's obvious that Chaffetz created the bill to help the shareholders in their Federal cases rather than hindering them through an unfair financial burden. I'm particularly argumentative over this subject matter most likely because I've seen several short sellers using this bill as a false narrative to disseminate their bias.
FOIA costs would be considered an operational expense. NWS is AFTER expenses, which is why even though it seems like all profits are being swept, cash keeps growing. If all income was actually being swept, that would not be the case. I'm arguing over the silliness of the argument.
HUD spends $3 million per year in FOIA requests. If you think the GSE's have more data than HUD in which a FOIA could be requested for, then you're on your own.
It's not worth arguing about. The answer is no. It won't financially burden the companies. On to other things.
I believe it will. Watching the hearings in which Chaffetz detailed why he wrote the bill, he gives reasons specific to the books and records of the company. We should know the answer soon.
If you think it costs $600m per year to service FOIA requests, by all means keep believing that.
From FOIA website:
"There is no initial fee required to submit a FOIA request, but the FOIA does provide for the charging of certain types of fees in some instances.
For a typical requester the agency can charge for the time it takes to search for records and for duplication of those records. There is usually no charge for the first two hours of search time or for the first 100 pages of duplication.
You may always include in your request letter a specific statement limiting the amount that you are willing to pay in fees. If an agency estimates that the total fees for processing your request will exceed $25, it will notify you in writing of the estimate and offer you an opportunity to narrow your request in order to reduce the fees. If you agree to pay fees for a records search, you may be required to pay such fees even if the search does not locate any releasable records."
Pretty clear that the majority of costs are passed onto the consumer.
This information provides details of how it's impossible for a FOIA requester to financial burden a company through FOIA requests.
https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide-2004-edition-fees-and-fee-waivers
The rules of the game is, and AGAIN, make the pre-market trade that will cost you one share and broker fees, show me your verified time-stamped transaction, and I'll be more than happy to pay you $100.
I already addressed those three transactions. They are "late-to-tape prints" from previous day trades.
Maybe they had a glitch. Maybe those issues are being called. Could be a minor technicality. Could be several things. Whatever it is, it was important enough to recieve a U3 Code.
You're correct. Very interesting.
The first mistake is taking a seekingalpha article, most often written by a non professional that drives an ice cream truck for a living, as fact. Read the actual bill, which is only two pages long, and find out.
FOIA requests can be made online through the government. They all require YOU to pay for the request YOU are making.
No broker trades FNMA Pre-market.
Make the trade and prove it. My guess is, whoever you talked to on the phone is ill-informed. Relaying a message of a conversation you had isn't going to prove anything. Make the trade and get paid.
Example: I talked to TD Ameritrade just yesterday. They called me about a new platform they created for institutional investors that allow back testing. I asked if it can back test ROIC. He said "what's ROIC?". I said "thanks for calling, have a nice day". Lol.
FOIA requests are always paid by the requester. Your assumption isn't even logical.
Some OTC stocks do trade pre-market. Fannie Mae does not. Hence, NASDAQ, who controls the OTC electronic broker market, states clearly that FNMA does not trade extended hours. All you have to do, like I said, is show me a time-stamped pre-market transaction of FNMA and I'll PayPal you over $100. Calling your broker isn't going to get it done. Prove the trade.