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.
Getting a file not found 404 error. Must be a lot of people trying to listen.
I'd say $1.67 is current support.
All rumors and opinions at this point.
Nobody was complaining about $1.75 last week...
"Further, as Perry Capital appellants assert, preventing them from discussing the documents during other parts of the oral argument would potentially undermine their ability to fully prosecute their case, as these documents may be relevant to all aspects of their appeal."
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0313.pdf
Strong words from Sweeney today.
"Instead of harm to the Nation resulting from disclosure, the only “harm” presented is the potential for criticism of an agency, institution, and the decision-makers of those entities. The court will not condone the misuse of a protective order as a shield to insulate public officials from criticism in the way they execute their public duties. Thus, avoidance of “second-guessing” an agency’s decisions several years after the fact, as described by Mr. Watt, is, with the passage of time no longer a legitimate basis to maintain documents under a protective order. The court notes that from the inception of this litigation, the government has consistently maintained that the court lacks jurisdiction over this case because the United States had no control over the enterprises. Taking the government at its word, it is surprising that defendant is concerned with the unsealing of government officials’ deposition testimony."
But could the USG even put together an appeal based on what's been released thus far? IMO it would be something like; yeah we lied, but it was to protect the taxpayer. If they were smart, they would focus on a defense rather than an appeal.
Is it possible she's releasing just enough to support her ruling?
Q. Okay. And were you aware that Grant Thornton was doing its own projections of the future
of foundation. This is also beyond the scope of the Discovery Order.
A. I mean, you know, I don't remember exactly, you know, did somebody say this or that or whatever. I
don't remember the specific comments, but I remember the general gist of conversation was in that kind of vein.
Q. (BY MR. THOMPSON) And was there a sense of this is a problem if we can't generate capital and
retain capital?
MR. LAUFGRABEN: Object to the form of the question.
How is this related to any of the topics in the Discovery Order?
MR. THOMPSON: Well, it relates to the profitability, was it a problem in the term of probability.
MR. LAUFGRABEN: We will instruct the witness not to answer this.
MR. THOMPSON: She is not your witness.
MR. BARTOLOMUCCI: Do you know what the question on the table is?
A. So why we've had a little bit of back and forth here.
Q. (BY MR. THOMPSON) So was there a sense that this was going to be a problem for Fannie going forward
that it was not able to retain capital?
MR. LAUFGRABEN: Same objection.
We're instructing the witness not to
answer, this is so far beyond the scope of the discovery order.
A. There were discussions about the pros and cons. In other words, what about it is good for Fannie, what about it may not be so good for Fannie, okay?
Q. Okay.
A. Sos, you know, one of the things, you know,
that is to the good is it did resolve this iterative borrow-to-pay-the-dividend issue that we've talked about previously.
You know, in my mind, the lack of capital accumulation meant that we had no -- we were building no financial wherewithal to take on unexpected events and losses, that we would be highly dependent on the Government -- even more-so dependent on the Government if an event, things like that happened in the future.
I didn't take in my own mind whether this
was a temporary -- you know, that we've got this -- you know, look, they put a second amendment in, they put a third amendment in, could there be a fourth amendment.
So things could change in the future, so
I didn't take it as a forever and ever amen necessarily.
It could be, but it didn't necessarily need to be. So I wasn't, you know, kind of trying to draw any conclusion.
It seemed odd to me that if what they wanted to do was wipe out the shareholders, why they didn't do that in inception of the conservatorship in the first place, because they left market speculation to occur in the marketplace.
So -- but time passes. Different people
and minds may think differently over time. So, you know, I wasn't assuming one way or the other that they were trying to wipe out the shareholders.
Q. Well, you said earlier that, well, you know, there was surprise and not surprise.
Was the not surprise because there was a sneaking suspicion that the Government wasn't going to let anyone else participate in the profits?
MR. LAUFGRABEN: Same objection as we specified before.
We would instruct the witness not to answer this question. It's far beyond the scope of the Discovery Order, and Counsel has not tied it to any topics in the Discovery Order.
MR. BARTOLOMUCCI: Do you want to restate the question?
MR. THOMPSON: Sure.
Q. (BY MR. THOMPSON) So was there a -- did you have the sense that the Government simply was not going to allow the private shareholders to participate in
future profits when you were at Fannie?
Do you think that was one of the possibilities that might ultimately come out?
MR. LAUFGRABEN: Renew our objections and our instruction to the witness not to answer.
Counsel still has not tied this to the Discovery Order.
MR. BARTOLOMUCCI: David, do you really want her to answer what was her sense of what the Government thought was possible?
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah.
I mean, it goes to the reasonable investment -- yeah.
Q. (BY MR. THOMPSON) I mean, from your perspective, you were dealing with the Government, and you said you weren't surprised totally by the net worth sweep.
I just really want you to explain why.
MR. LAUFGRABEN: Same objections, and same instructions.
A. I will tell you -- yeah. This is from my
vantage point. I am not presuming what the Government
was thinking or wanted. I am not trying to represent
anything from them. I may represent my perspective on
what they may have been thinking.
I just sat down with them -- to the
Treasury and said, "We think we're sustaining
profitable."
The numbers were decent-sized. I also
put on the radar that there was a possibility of a
deferred tax allowance release that could be sitting in
the not-so-distant future.
So the fact that this happened shortly
thereafter -- so the time -- the time connection there
was part of why -- that was part of why I wasn't
surprised. Okay. I just told them that.
So then the question is why would they be
concerned of us making money and creating capital inside
the enterprise. I think in my own opinion, a lot of --
a lot of people got wiped out, and the Government had to
step in on a lot of fronts during the financial crisis.
I think politically it seemed a little -- it would seem
to me that there would be individuals bothered that some
individuals might profit from the Government's support
of the enterprises, okay?
So, you know, it wouldn't -- would it
be -- how would it play out if somebody made big bucks
because -- off the backs of the taxpayers? I am kind
of -- how some people could connect dots that the Government stepped in, put a bunch of money into the GSEs using taxpayers' funds, and now Daddy Big Bucks over here is making a big profit off of Fannie Mae stock.
You could see how positioned that way,how that would be pretty politically unpalatable. I could see why there could be a concern that anybody plays things out that way. So, thus, why -- I wasn't trying to presume that they completely wanted to wipe out the shareholders, but I certainly would appreciate why there would be sensitivity of things playing out in a way that somebody would glob on to that story line.
Does that make sense?
$2.00 by EOD easy. Volume is starting to pour in.
FNMAS has a S in the ticker. While under c-ship, that's the only difference. What the S stands for is still open to interpretation.
Thanks for the update.
Rule of Law? Fannie Mae investor appeals to 'Prof.' Obama
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/A-FannieFreddie-investors-open-letter-to-President-obama.html
Private companies incorporated in DE & VA.
IMO this ruling is the catalyst for our run-up.
Should see some resistance at $1.75.
About to break through.
Hit some resistance at $1.65.
IMHO you need both, but I could be wrong.
The same Mel Watt who said he doesn't lay awake at nite worrying about investors?
"Investor confidence is critical if we are to have, as we do today, a well-functioning and highly liquid housing finance market that makes it possible for families to lock in interest rates, obtain 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages, and prepay a mortgage if they want torefinance or need to move,” Watt said. “If investor confidence in Enterprise securities went down and liquidity declined as a result, this could have real ramifications on the availability and cost of credit for borrowers.”
"A decision on this matter could come from the Court at any time."
Retail is finally reacting to Berko's purchase.
It's never been cited in a defendant's response. It doesn't matter how many times you reference it, it's irrelevant.
Delaware filing up on GSE links.
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Jacobs_Hindes/15-00708-0023.pdf
Government's job isn't to pick winners and losers. It's a thought and may very well be true, but there's nothing to confirm that.
Good to hear. I was getting worried for a minute.
While others be tax selling, I'm tax buying.
They don't but have been described as a option with a expiration based on a court ruling.
Dow still down 2%. MACD line was prime for a pop.
Very interesting those T trades took place the day before this meeting.
I'm not sure a tax sale makes sense. FMCC transaction took place before the FNMA transaction. FNMA transaction cost around 5M more than the FMCC transaction. Both occurred within 4 minutes, so the one thing we can say for certain was that it was a planned transaction by the same person.
Do you think TSY would sell on the open market or in an offering? IMO, I don't see them selling at any price before release in the open market.
The commons are worth multiples. No need to worry about a few cents.
This bill just confirms what TSY has committed to all along. Why is this surprising?
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/fhfa-duty-to-serve-webinar-tickets-19731809373
FHFA WEBINAR – Proposed Rule on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Duty to Serve Underserved Markets
Details:
FHFA staff will hold a webinar on its proposed rule on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Duty to Serve Underserved Markets.
After a summary presentation, FHFA staff will address only questions on the Duty to Serve submitted to FHFA in advance. Please submit any questions by 4 p.m. EST, Friday, December 18 to: DutyToServeStakeholders@FHFA.gov. Please put “question” in the subject line. Please note that questioners may be identified during the webinar if their questions are selected. All questions, the identities of the questioners, and FHFA’s responses will be included in the public comments record for the proposed rule.
Anyone with a computer and internet access (broadband is recommended to ensure best quality) can attend the online webcast provided the computer meets minimum system requirements shown below. If you cannot attend the online webcast, you may listen to the webcast live by dialing:
Call-in number: 1-888-850-4523
Passcode: 747171
We strongly recommend that you test your computer and browser prior to the date of the webinar. To test the webinar platform on your computer, go to http://www.webex.com/test-meeting.html
Plaintiffs expect that these and other documents listed in Exhibit 1 would corroborate Ms. McFarland’s testimony that
45:11–13 (A057) (McFarland:
13
See Ex. 9 at
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 272 Filed 12/07/15 Page 21 of 46
. If this is true, it would demonstrate that the reason why the Government effectively nationalized Fannie and Freddie was not, as the Government has claimed in its briefing, to prevent a “death spiral” in which the enterprises would “fai[l] to generate enough revenue to fund the 10-percent dividend obligation” and be required to “dra[w] on the Treasury commitment to pay Treasury its fixed dividend, which, in turn, [would] increase[] Treasury’s total investment and the next quarterly dividend.” Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 9–10 (Dec. 9, 2013), Doc. 20 (“Def.’s MTD”). Rather, these documents would demonstrate that the Government’s decision was driven by the fact that Fannie and Freddie were poised to generate tens of billions of dollars in profit over and above their existing dividend obligations—money that could go toward rebuilding Fannie’s and Freddie’s capital reserves for potential exit from conservatorship and that could benefit shareholders other than Treasury. Defendant, however, was determined to keep Fannie and Freddie under government control and to ensure that shareholders other than Treasury would be wiped out. See
Thus, we believe that the withheld documents will likely show that the purpose of the Net Worth Sweep was to expropriate for the government every last dollar of the substantial profits and massive deferred tax asset valuation allowance releases that were anticipated in the near future, to prevent Fannie and Freddie from rebuilding capital and exiting conservatorship, and to ensure that Fannie’s and
Freddie’s private shareholders received no value whatsoever for their investment.
TSY must have took it out on the share price after they produced it last week. IMHO.
"Two of the documents Defendant produced only after it became apparent that Plaintiffs were about to file this motion to compel are particularly noteworthy. First, Defendant produced a memo
Ex. 12 at A081, UST00556835.
That fact utterly discredits Defendant’s “death spiral” explanation for why it imposed the Net Worth Sweep, and it is revealed in a memo that is clearly responsive to document requests that Plaintiffs propounded in April 2014. Even though it is clearly not privileged, Defendant did not produce this highly damaging document until last week. Also in
anticipation of this motion to compel, Defendant belatedly produced
Here again, it was only when threatened with a motion to compel 19 months after first receiving Plaintiffs’ document
8
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 272 Filed 12/07/15 Page 16 of 46
requests that Defendant produced a clearly responsive document that it now concedes is not privileged and that directly undermines the basic narrative it has used to defend the Net Worth Sweep."
Sad my funds are still transferring and didn't get any of those sweet sweet $1.75's.
Just waiting for funds to transfer. Will be buying big tomorrow morning.
Post the chart.