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.
Your analysis lacks restitution for what has occurred. Sorry, there is real money at stack and the government has stolen it and the ability.
They'd owe for the taking - to 2008 owners and for the failing to act in good faith during the conservatorship. They would owe some recompense to the perosn who bought in 2009 and sold in 2011 just like they owe something for the person who bought in 2010 and sold in 2015 or still have shares today.
They stole it they should pay for that priv.
And yes some number could total 700B
It might not but just because its possible doesn't mean its ridiculous.
Will it happen... likely not becuase the courts won't make the gov't pony up and the gov gets away with lots of things....
Just ask the indians.
I am saying is the government owes both before and after / during the conservatorship because it did not pay for taking hte companies ... pre
and it hasn't played fair post.
They've compounded their theft by stating conserve / protect safe and sound while the shares still trade ... thus they have an obligation to be honest, they'eve not done that.
Anyone who was an owner of the shares from the day of the taking 2008 thru and as of today have been injured in one way or another.
So, yes... both!
The problem here is that when the government took over fannie and freddie and stole their rights and their value. They left the shares trading on the open market as common and preferred stock. So when this occured the government stole the value and the shareholders at the time had the value taken thus they are entitled to compensation.
However,
Since they left them trading, i don't see how because there are rights associated with ownership they did not take, thus how could the have taken all rights when obviously they didn't...
So when the shares continued to trade they traded now with the expectation that the government would actually conserve and preserve / safe and sound.... but they didn't do that, they stole more and violated the trust of the people by doing so, thus, these shareholders are entitled to some amount in addition to the government actually releasing the companies and doing as they said.
This is really a FUBAR - in the sense that yes,
The government stole 300 billion but may very well owe 700Billion in restitution. Which, the courts will never allow to occur because, its a big number.
The nws is continuing therefore challenges may continue.
duh
Calabrrea is an intersting person. How the heck can they raise $$ while in conservatorship from new equity, when the warrants haven't been canceled, and company restored while being scammed?
Can't happen.
Need resolution of legal matters. Need warrants canceled and need out of or released even if under agreement - captital wise.
Not possible without cleaning up the mess.
Wow...
What an accurate assessment.
He really is a mo ron.
Thinks his black water don't stink.
Well... it does. He;s spewing nonsense.
Sorry.
He doesn't know.
He is a tool and pretty ignorant of facts which confuse him or simply ignores.
Fact is fannie and freddie never needed a dime of "infusion" were always cash flow positive from operations and always had positive net worth (net of the cookie jar accounting tricks perpetrated on them) and today would each have quite a sum of capital if not for the theft of Greedyment.
but unless you know, better and know the facts, you'll easily be swayed by people who either weren't paying attention to through all the noise or had an agenda... like those in Greedyment ... an agenda.
Calabria is no different.
What's his "agenda".
This writer is a crack pot.
Anyone that knows anything about 2008 knows fannie and freddie were the entire support for the finance system and were completely hosed by the greedyment.
But, revisionist theory the writer purports is just that...
worthless drivel.
such a sham that people can write hit pieces and get a way with it when they have an axe to grind or just plain repeating someone else's lies and mistruths.
horrible.
This clown is a joke.
Hard to bet on a joke.
MC just totally is ignoring history and what has occurred.
They really need to go back in time and amend and recalculate.
So hard to take.
MC is an idiot for ignoring the fact that had the sweep not been in place; they;d each have $40-$60Billion apiece or more.
What a dunce.
Problem with this fact is the greddyment has screwed the pooch again by calling it "liquidation" pref so while its retained earnings its also a liability - so in effect its nothing.
Until greddyment stops the screwjob we've gone no where.
shameful
So he is acknowledging the damages? Just that he's penniless?
hmmm...
i don't buy that he's penniless.
First thing is if his entity is unconstitutional then it doesn't exist therefore everything its done needs to be set aside if challenged.
Could be interesting
Its called a secondary offering Can only IPO once; everything else is not an IPO but a secondary.
BTW
This aligns with my idea that release and the IPO will occur at the same time. Most likely, with release upon completion of the IPO.
PE for a financial institution type stock that is more of a utility would be robust at around 12 since its interest rate sensitive.
Sure it may shoot up to some 15 or 18 until earnings adjust and normalize... but long term 12 is enough if the eps is $8-12 a share which on 1.1B shares outstanding is not impossible.
But this 85 - 90 pe you state is way outside the boundaries in my opinion.
Since fhfa is unconstitutionally structured... in a sense the don't exist how the heck are they defending themselves in a lawsuit, in that they don't exist?
Isn't this not dislike a "made" for tv entity... lets call them Shabby FHFA" that i just made up... lawfully they can't sue and if sued the auto lose? Since they'd have no corporate status as an entity?
Why isnt this the case with fhfa... they don't exist because they are unconstitutional.
If so, don't the rights they claim to have revert to me the shareholders to sue? vote, etc. etc.
Seems like a whole different problem.
And all of their prior agreements would then be void... or at least us as share holders could appoint management and void them?
Lets get a move on...
????
What happened with the notion of preserve and conserve / sound and solvent condition?
So the duties of a conservator aren't this?
If they aren't doing this with companies that earn 20Billion a year in profits... whats that mean?
Because government is "greedyment" that is why.
They have no shame for stealing what they want.
Looks to me like the Liquidation Pref is the problem.
If folks remember I mentioned this early on as a schtick and circular motion a couple of weeks ago. As a possibility, it really is like rubbing it in.
But, really? Liquidation pref is only important according to definiitions as if liquidated. But these two really shouldn't be anywhere near that, if honest accounting occurs.
Next.. since the $3B stays with thecompany instead of gifting it to treasury they have the opportunity to make money off of that equity. So, its actually a really good thing.
Finally, if the net worth sweep is against the law so should this liquidation pref as it promises the value to another and thus from an accounting side really is more like a debt than equity. Thus they've not really added to capital if in the meaning of what is debt -v equity from an accounting theory perspective. Consequently, it should be against the sound and solvent criteria as well. "sound" what is sound... in the meaning / definition... to me that means having the wherewithawl to act in a manner of soundness. Having inadequate capital and restless shareholders as a result is not sound.
Thus i'd have to say, this liquidation pref thing is not a sound move on the part of fhfa or treasury and should be challenged.
peace to all.
KT - I'll have to agree with you on this.
Fact is this LOA does and accomplishes nothing.
its more of a circle thing.
And its more of the same.
It does nothing to end anything.
So that's your take.
Mine is / was that the warrants were nothing more than boot for the collateral and would never be used. I felt like the company's were cash flow positive from operations and the businesses would be fine long term as they did fine ... except in the holding loans secured by homes. homes were financed in tranches and by far the older loans were good. the troubled loans were only the more recent ones, and with that they were not 100% worthless, the reserves were clearly too much and were the back bone of America.
So, yes, it was expected that longterm... betting on America they would be fine and the warrants would never ever ever be "needed".
it was really that simple thought pattern.
So,
Using the warrants would be bad for common shareholders bad for the company ... bad bad bad.
The absolute best thing is to set these entities free at as high a valuation as possible.. everyone wins.
Gov't gets taxes
people buy things
then economy is better
jobs are created
everyone benefits.
as more income taxes are paid.
as is... only government benefits.
Government is greedyment.
Go review the 2008 news releases and quotes by the officials.
There is enough in there as to "reasonable" expectations of this investment to carry enough weight to sway a jury or even an honest judge if one can be found outside of the 5th.
fact is the warrants are trash... its just a matter of time.
I think you are guessing... you don't know.
Sure the warrants are fruit of a poison tree...
anyone with a sense of truth realize and know that the warrants as described at they time were collateral and intended as that way, never to be used.
As a purchaser of the stock post 2008 i had reasonable expectation that the word of the officials would be honored and the warrants would be trashed, if and when the money was repaid. Well the money was repaid, so now i reasonably expect as do many more others that the warrants will be tendered.
At this point, yes, many like this would have standing as a share owner and trusting in the word of the government based upon the reasonable expectations.
The plaintiffs are suing the government not fannie and freddie ... using fannie and freddie as bargain to settle is not feasible as its not their currency - so that's a non starter.
The other claims need to be resolved.
You've not addressed those.
So, the gse's will pay more to keep the money they earned? even after having totally repaid there debt obligation?
sarcastically, what a bargain.
i get it...
but really, think about it.
how else is the government going to resolve ALL the pending / threatened litigation associated with this mess and put all the issues at rest?
1. Bankruptcy... hmmm... that's really no longer an option now is it?
2. Receivership ... see 1 above.
3. Resolve litigation pending / threatened and potential new actions??
not really a good idea, hard to get all things done at once. creates a time delay of months or years. And just canceling the sweep today doesn't really address damages nor settle all the claims.
4. Class action settlement. So, they'd need to allow the plaintiffs to ammend the complaint, not object and then settle it by agreement and have the judge approve it. yes, it'll probably take 12-18 months for it to occur... thru payouts, etc. but how else to make this mess truly go away? and build some confidence?
Think end game and
The Wa fed case is a class action.
Class action settlement is the only way to extinguish ALL claims.
All claims will need to be resolved in order for the greedyment to get out of this mess. The settlement will have to come from the greedyment to the stake holders and this means common and preferred holders that were denied its interests throughout the period 2008 to when its resolved.
I'd figure some amount per share divided by holding period.
There is only around 2 billion common and its been 11 years so figure around 2 bucks a year or 22 total maybe more to get it done. Another piece for the preferred (but not as much) since their rights were to liquidation par value and their divi's were not cumulative. But certainly something.
Could cost the greedyment around 45Billion to clean their mess up ... along with returning the stolen money.
Sure would be nice.
5x that when warrants are canceled.
We can expect to be screwed somehow.
At least on the first attempt.
One thing for sure... its interesting, but if fhfa is unconstitutionally formed / whatever, how do they have any standing, and can't everything they'd done be washed away, immediately?
I want this to be over.
I want the money returned
the interest rate retro to 3%
everything refigured with this and the warrants canceled (they are a taking anyway)
and the debt paid off.
I want the share value to reflect true value.
Right now we trade on speculation that these people in DC do something they've talked about and kicked the can down the road on in one fashion for years.
Until, they do something affirmative and positive, you know like keeping their word, its but a feeble start. However, if IF they actually stop the thievery and allow the entities to retain capital that is not "added" to the liquidation preference... then...
then...
we jump.
When will this happen?
The retention of captital... by adding it to the liquidation pref...preference of the senior secured is not capital. its borrowed money that is then "pledged" to the senior preferred or greedyment.
it is imperative that the next sp amendment eliminate the concept of just pushing it back to the greedyment through "liquidation" pref..
its a big circle jerk...
You mean the arrest warrant right?
Interesting that calabra pointed out that the 3bilion in equity the companies get to keep ... well all they did was write it into the amendment to add it to t"liquidation" preference of the senior pref shares. Basically, mothballing it for their greedy hands anyway. its not equity it its not the companies.
Greedyment (government) at it again.
Sick sob's
I wish i had the $$ to take it to them.
Someone has to fight for what's right
80% of the company for free is a takings.
it also doesn't put or allow them to be safe and sound ...
SOUND being the word.
Its a theft of equity / value and its
outside of the scope of the conservator to give away the assets / value of the company ...
The court just said so.
Josh comments
The government’s contracted rate of return (agreed to by the #GSE’s with a gun to their heads) was 10%. @FannieMae & @FreddieMac have now paid @USTreasury 13%. Who really received the windfall?
Stop ...
The 10% was 2-3x the going rate and it was between treas and fhfa which are governemnt entities controlled by the wh.
it was an inside deal that was just like the nws and the warrants ...
a taking!
Can't anyone one else see this?????
If they'd been charged tarp rates for money they didn't need....
Its a big numnber...
come on ya'll get it!
So treasury wants to do an agreement with itself.. greedyment and greedyment meet... what do you expect.
treasury and fhfa both controlled by white house are negotiating... wonder how that's gonna turn out?
Hmmm..
looks to me... the separation has just been poof... exposed.
Thank you.
Hope people come to the same realization about greedyment (government)
Its really very simple to get to that conclusion if you've been paying attention.
Yes,
Its really simple to what extent did treasury / fhfa act outside the scope of conservator. The NWS is obviously giving away 100% of the current earnings or equity; while the warrants are a giving away of 80% of the future equity or value of the company for near zero consideration.
Question then if taking it all is wrong. Is taking 80% also outside the scope?
Probably yes.
So, warrants die on the vine.
This comment is so annoying..
"investors that have long hoped to make a windfall"
You mean the same kind of windfall that Amazon investors have received, or maybe IBM, or Dupont or any of a zillion others?
The same kind of windfall the "writer" of that that piece got for being so privileged to have a job?
That kind of windfall.
Nonsense.
Fannie and Freddie investors have rights and finally some judges just ruled that way.
Its gonna be fun watching the cockroaches scurry.
Windfall... my tuckus.