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.
I can get there and pull up tickers without an issue.
Try this:
http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/
Today's drop off in FNMA is to be expected. Par for the course.
Great buying opportunities just opened up, depending on how you view the drop in price. Also, this is a major test in patience and I choose to wait for the outcome as it appears to me to lean towards a favorable outcome for shareholders regardless of what the daily swings of the price say.
We are just seeing a representation of the psychology of the market. Very educational.
I think FnF would drop hard if Greenberg lose this case. However, the loss will create a much larger ripple effect.
Carney was locked up and now works for the Wall Street Journal? Hmm, what got him time in prison?
This would be super educational if they offered a real-time feed of the luncheon. I hope some type of transcript is released for review.
Thanks for sharing.
Excellent post!
In taking a guess at the context of the message, I think he is saying that those short selling and driving Fannie prices down are in essence telling long investors to give up in spite of victory seemingly being nearby. By saying "Nuts" is really saying the shorts are nuts to believe longs should give up when victory for the longs is close and longs will need to keep pressing on.
I am looking forward to the end of the AIG trial. This should help to clear up a lot of things.
I believe I read where the case is looking to be wrapped up by the end of the month. It can't come soon enough.
Never mind.
That can definitely happen, Fannie and Freddie begin skipping price points and moving on up the price ladder. Only a couple of weeks more to go for AIG trial decision.
AIG May Be on Hook If Hank Greenberg Wins Bailout Suit
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-14/aig-may-be-on-hook-if-hank-greenberg-wins-bailout-suit.html
The U.S. government has grounds to demand that American International Group Inc. (AIG) pay any significant damages should Maurice “Hank” Greenberg win his $25 billion claim that federal officials shortchanged investors in the 2008 bailout of the insurer.
Greenberg and other investors who sued the government initially estimated damages at $25 billion. Later calculations put the figure closer to $40 billion. The smaller figure would be the equivalent of more than the twice insurer’s $9 billion in net profit last year.
During any U.S. attempt to establish a legal right to the money, based on an indemnity promise in AIG’s bailout agreement, taxpayers would probably have to foot the bill initially. Damages would be paid out of the so-called Judgment Fund, which is administered by the Department of Treasury.
“It’s this bottomless financial pit that the government dips into when it has to pay a judgment,” said John Echeverria, a professor at the Vermont School of Law.
AIG isn’t a party to the class-action suit, which was filed by Greenberg’s Starr International Co. on behalf of him and about 275,000 other AIG investors. As a condition of an $85 billion bailout loan, AIG’s management agreed to pay any damages resulting from litigation tied to the rescue, according to U.S. court filings.
‘Financially Prudent’
“If I was the government, I would absolutely look to AIG and to anyone else to pick up some of the tab,” said David Zaring, a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “That would just be financially prudent.”
Still, pursuing AIG for reimbursement of damages would create the awkward and legally unfavorable circumstance of putting the arm on someone else for government conduct, Zaring said.
“It’s the government’s own actions that are being sued about,” he said.
AIG acknowledges in its most recent quarterly report that it might have to pay the Greenberg damages: “A determination that the United States is liable for damages, together with a determination that AIG is obligated to indemnify the United States for any such damages, could have a material adverse effect on our business,” the company said in a filing.
In trying to collect a large judgment from AIG, the government would be harming a company it said it had to save in 2008 to prevent catastrophic damage to the U.S. economy.
Government’s Choice
Stephen Aiello, a spokesman for Starr International, declined to comment directly on who should pay damages. “This is up to the government to decide how they want to handle this, if they lose the case,” Aiello said.
Nicole Navas, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, declined to comment on how the government would respond to an adverse judgment. Matt Gallagher, a spokesman for New York-based AIG, declined to comment on the trial.
If the U.S. loses at trial, it may have a hard time collecting from what was once the world’s largest insurer. U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Thomas Wheeler, who is hearing the case in Washington without a jury, said in a pre-trial ruling that Starr had raised “legitimate questions about the viability” of government defenses, including the indemnity clause.
Wheeler rejected a government motion to strike the defenses as invalid, saying he wanted to hear more about them at trial. Starr argued the clause was invalid because the bailout agreement that contained it was illegally imposed on AIG.
Enforceability Doubt
It isn’t clear that the clause is enforceable, said John Echeverria, a law professor at the Vermont Law School who writes the Takings Litigation blog. “I’ve never run across an indemnity agreement like that.”
The U.S. doesn’t have much practice getting reimbursement from third parties after making payments from the Judgment Fund, according to Nancie Marzulla, a Washington attorney who specializes in federal claims litigation.
“I’m not aware of any case where the government has gone after a third party and recovered for any damages” that were levied against it, Marzulla said.
The trial began Sept. 29, and is now scheduled to conclude before the Nov. 27 Thanksgiving holiday. The losing side is almost certain to appeal the court’s decision, and any final resolution is probably years off.
Bernanke, Geithner
The case has featured testimony by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who was head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York when it bailed out AIG.
Starr claims the government cheated shareholders by demanding an 80 percent equity stake in the company, after already having all the company’s assets as collateral, and by imposing a 14 percent interest rate on the $85 billion loan while charging other rescued companies less than 4 percent.
David Boies, Starr’s lead attorney, argued that U.S. officials didn’t have the authority under the Federal Reserve Act to demand equity or to discriminate against AIG with what he called an extortionate interest rate.
Responding to the multibillion-dollar damage claims, government lawyers argued that the real harm is zero because AIG’s alternative to the bailout was bankruptcy.
AIG Defense
AIG has a possible defense to the government’s invocation of the indemnity agreement. It isn’t responsible for damages if they resulted primarily from the government’s gross negligence or willful misconduct, according to Elliott Stein, a financial litigation analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence.
Wheeler could issue a ruling that the government is liable without awarding damages or without concluding it was grossly negligent or engaged in misconduct, Stein said.
To assist in that outcome, the government might frame its closing arguments to try to minimize any finding of gross negligence or misconduct, said Larry Cunningham, a law professor at George Washington University who has co-authored with Greenberg “The AIG Story,” a history of the company.
“They could say, ‘If you do find that we violated the law, we acted in good faith,’’ Cunningham said. ‘‘We were trying to do the right thing.’’
The case is Starr International Co. v. U.S., 11-cv-00779, U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Washington).
To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Zajac in Washington at azajac@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net Patrick Oster, Dan Kraut
OT: Hey Brandon, I read your history into the world of OTC. Very educational.
I no longer trade OTCs because they move too fast and are too wrought with problems (massive dilution, bag holders, share selling schemes).
Thanks for sharing your experience.
NOTE: Original message edited based on response from NayCmdr, which makes sense. Disregard.
Zeph, I have no clue at all. Care to throw a hint my way? Lol! I just can't figure out who may know something.
..starting with those massive blocks in the preferred shares. Good lawd.
Roockie, you are on it, my man. Below are 10K+ share blocks from FNMAS. The 9M block went through around 2:58PM. Somebody knows something and this is NOT retail buying in big blocks like this:
Price Size Time
4.25 10000 15:55:07
4.2 10000 13:23:10
4.33 10000 11:08:38
4.28 10547 09:57:31
4.28 12500 11:15:14
4.28 13000 09:58:33
4.28 13000 09:58:05
4.23 14500 11:53:54
4.2 16800 15:00:39
4.29 17000 11:03:29
4.25 17500 16:00:43
4.2 23200 15:08:41
4.19 35000 14:02:27
4.21 35000 14:01:06
4.19 65000 14:19:21
4.21 65000 14:17:58
4.29 100000 11:02:04
4.268 116000 11:05:52
4.2799 133000 10:42:36
4.25 133000 10:27:49
4.25 135000 11:04:00
4.25 500000 11:05:15
4.23 750000 13:02:37
4.25 1000000 12:18:10
4.2 8993500 14:58:48
Live Video Now: The election is over: Now what for Fannie and Freddie?
http://www.aei.org/events/election-now-fannie-freddie/
J.P. Morgan Dealmaker Lee to Take Stand in Greenberg’s AIG Suit:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/11/13/j-p-morgan-dealmaker-lee-to-take-stand-in-greenbergs-aig-suit/
November 13, 2014, 12:52 PM ET
J.P. Morgan Dealmaker Lee to Take Stand in Greenberg’s AIG Suit
ByLeslie Scism
Another top Wall Street deal-maker is poised to testify in the trial over the bailout of American International Group Inc., providing additional detail about the frenzied and ultimately unsuccessful efforts to find a private-sector lifeline for the company.
The government has told the court that it expects this week to call James B. Lee Jr., vice chairman of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co, long one of the most prominent bankers in the mergers-and-acquisitions world. He could take the stand as early as this afternoon, people familiar with the matter said.
Mr. Lee is expected to testify about efforts by J.P. Morgan to help AIG line up private-sector financing in the several days before the company accepted what turned out to be one of the government’s biggest bailouts of the 2008-09 financial crisis. The rescue, which has been fully repaid, reached nearly $185 billion at its peak.
The judge at the bench trial in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., already has heard from other bankers–including John Studzinski, a Blackstone Group LP senior managing director–who were involved in the deal-making efforts.
The testimony has been entertaining at times. Asked if he was present at the AIG board meeting where the bailout was voted on, Mr. Studzinski answered: “What sort of advisor do you think I am? I was present in person. Oh, my God, shocking questions.”
The lawsuit was brought in 2011 by Maurice R. “Hank” Greenberg, who built AIG into a global powerhouse over nearly four decades as its chief executive until his departure in 2005. His Starr International Co. investment firm was AIG’s biggest shareholder at the time of the bailout.
The suit maintains the government didn’t have legal authority to take an equity stake in AIG, among other alleged improper aspects of the takeover. The deal-making activity is relevant because Mr. Greenberg contends that the government coerced AIG’s board into accepting the bailout by trying to quash private-sector opportunities. Its purported motive was to control the company and use it as a vehicle for funneling money to AIG’s counterparties on Wall Street and overseas in “backdoor bailouts.”
The government maintains it stepped in as a last-resort lender to rescue the insurance conglomerate after efforts by AIG and the government to come up with private-sector money proved futile.
In testimony in recent days, AIG’s deputy chief investment officer, Brian Schreiber, described how he had overseen an open house of sorts at AIG in the weekend before the Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2008, government bailout. Various private-equity firms, including J.C. Flowers & Co. and KKR & Co., and other potential bidders were in meetings to learn more about deal opportunities.
Mr. Schreiber, who then was a point person for strategic planning for the company, recalled one session in a jammed conference room. “There were, you know, maybe 50 or more people in the meeting… sort of packed to the rafters.” He recollected senior bankers from J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley in attendance.
Mr. Studzinski, in videotaped testimony from London that was played in court, recalled how he had worked with a handful of Blackstone partners and “a cascade of junior people below them” to try to rummage up $20 billion for AIG in approximately 24 to 48 hours.
“You could argue among sane people” that the assignment was “in the category of fantasy,” he testified.
He said Blackstone had had “no ability to verify/analyze” exactly what kind of problems AIG had, both because of the time squeeze and shortcomings in AIG’s management-information system at the time—“slightly somewhere between the abacus and some variation thereof,” he said.
Among parties that Blackstone make contact with were representatives of sovereign wealth funds in Singapore and China, he said, and private-equity firms such as KKR and European insurance giants AXA SA and Allianz SE . He said Blackstone tried to identify AIG assets, such as real-estate holdings, that “could be seen to be either salable in the course of the weekend, which gets into the fantasy-land category,” or could be used as collateral.
He said he had entered the weekend thinking a challenge would be reaching senior decision-makers on short notice, but with the financial world focused on a global markets meltdown “the ability to access very senior people who were prepared to talk and be constructive was very real.”
However, no deals resulted because the parties needed a week to five weeks to make a decision, Mr. Studzinski testified.
AIG’s Mr. Schreiber echoed those thoughts, summarizing some reasons why transactions couldn’t be done: Investors had a hard time figuring out how much money AIG needed; interested parties weren’t willing to loan with the financial crisis growing more severe by the day; there was too little time to gain comfort with doing a large deal, and it was too hard to value assets amid the market turmoil.
By Monday, Sept. 15, 2008, the day before the bailout, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had become involved in the matter, as AIG’s liquidity problems were rapidly worsening. The New York Fed asked J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs to team to line up a consortium of banks to lend to AIG, witnesses have testified.
That bank-consortium effort focused on a potential loan of $70 billion or more. A tentative term sheet was drawn up under which the lenders would have gotten a 79.9% ownership stake in AIG in exchange, according to testimony.
That term sheet became the basis for the AIG bailout by the government, former New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner earlier testified.
Good eye, Roockie. Largest orders today for FNAMS as of 1:23PM EST:
PPS Block Time
4.29 100000 11:02:04
4.268 116000 11:05:52
4.2799 133000 10:42:36
4.25 133000 10:27:49
4.25 135000 11:04:00
4.25 500000 11:05:15
4.23 750000 13:02:37
4.25 1000000 12:18:10
Feds Turn to Housing Market to Boost Slow Recovery
Critics warn that government is producing another bubble that could harm economy
http://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/feds-turn-to-housing-market-to-boost-slow-recovery/
BY: Daniel Wiser
November 13, 2014 10:00 am
Federal regulators are attempting to lower credit and lending standards for home mortgage loans during a time when there is little demand for housing, some experts say, a move that could create another destabilizing bubble if the economy improves.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and other government regulators have announced steps in recent weeks that would ease access to housing for high-risk borrowers. FHFA oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that taxpayers were forced to bail out in 2008 after the risky home loans they purchased defaulted.
However, it remains unclear whether taking out risky, large mortgages would be a wise financial decision for many Americans, even if mortgage credit could be made more easily available. Wages are stagnant for many Americans, and more young adults saddled with student loan debt are choosing to live with their parents.
The share of homes purchased by first-time buyers dropped to an almost 30-year low this year as home prices rose. First-time buyers also comprised a smaller share of the housing market in 2006, when prices peaked before the financial crisis.
Josh Rosner, managing director of research consultancy Graham Fisher & Co., said in an interview that the government’s policy is still “biased” toward propping up the housing market to help the economic recovery. It is more likely that “housing will lag the economy,” he said.
Additionally, recent proposals by the FHFA are have caused concern for some because Fannie and Freddie are not allowed to keep most of their earnings from selling mortgage-backed securities, Rosner said. Those profits go to the Treasury Department under an agreement reached in 2012.
Taxpayers could thus again easily be called upon to save Fannie and Freddie with billions of dollars if the companies expand mortgage lending. They would have no capital to absorb losses from bad loans.
“I find it really disturbing that we’re moving to the riskier products while Fannie and Freddie have no capital,” Rosner said. “They should be raising capital.”
FHFA Director Mel Watt sought to allay concerns last week that borrowers would default on home loans with low down payments. In remarks at the National Association of Realtors Conference & Expo, he said borrowers would need strong credit histories and other types of enhancements such as private mortgage insurance.
The full guidelines for the loans, which could have down payments between 3 and 5 percent, have yet to be released. “Subprime” loans with low down payments and lax credit requirements were a principal cause of the 2008 economic downturn.
Only a small number of homebuyers might initially take advantage of the new loan options. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) also offers loans with low down payments.
The U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI) group said in a statement to the Free Beacon that it will act as a “second set of eyes” on the low down payment loans that it insures to help prevent default.
“We won’t know the standards FHFA will apply until they are announced, but already Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac no longer purchase loans that do not conform to the Qualified Mortgage [QM] rule,” USMI said.
The QM rule, developed recently by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has been criticized for permitting mortgage loans with weak credit and down payment requirements.
The FHFA did not respond to a request for comment.
Significant Lawsuits Concerning Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Net Worth Sweep :
http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201408.pdf
Movement on Level 2 is very interesting. My eyes pick up a short squeeze set up. I saw a 100K Bid hit around 11:11AM and then the Ask thinned out a lot.
Very interesting indeed.
Like imminent release and some "insiders" are holding the stock back for an explosive run, to their benefit?
I agree. I believe these moves are meant to shake and fake out retail investors. Big money only want us in on it when we are buying their shares at higher prices. They don't care too much for retail traders until it is time to unload their positions for a profit.
Excellent find.
Never mind.
I didn't see a petition. However, WhiteHouse.gov has the option to create one here:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions
Does anyone know if there is a current White House petition regarding FnF? I found this link to petition the White House:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions
Not a hatred but to be a public servant, he doesn't appear to have a servant's heart.
Hey Bob.
I see you sometimes play a few hundred share blocks and then you may play a thousand or two share blocks.
What makes you decide one over the other?
Same here. I know someone who works in the mortgage industry that believes FnF are responsible.
What's the status of the AIG case in terms of where it is (closing arguments, etc)?
...been looking for your posts, bud. Missed reading them. Welcome back.
Good article: 6 questions for Ed DeMarco
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/6-questions-for-ed-demarco-the-former-regulator-of-fannie-freddie-2014-09-08
Nittens!
If we go sub $2, could be the final push down before release, etc. It may take some Peto Bismal to stomach these push downs.
I agree that it will be released when least expected. To me, the majority of the arrows point to release and a favorable outcome for shareholders. It seems to be lining up and requires much patience.