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.
Wayne,
I am fully behind the recap and release; however, a utility model works as well.
The thing here is as conservator, they shouldn't be permitted to fundamentally change their busines.. which is what csp does.
Wayne,
You are being short sighted. Its like changing burger king into a pizza restaurant. What they've done is combined fannie and freddie processing into a single process. The company identity is therefore being changed as is its business model, and that is not in line with the normal role of conservator; except for fhfa can do whatever it wants. This is just one example.
Sorry, i just disagree.
Should re-reade hera. and the role of conservator.
Conservator is not to change the fundamentals of the business. That is what they are doing and in my opinion runs afoul of the role when doing so. Again, in my opinion there has to be limits to the role of conservator which is why the whole stinking thing is a sham.
The warrants are ethically wrong and morally corrupt. They are garbage and exercising them in my opinion is a takings and likely will be followed by lawsuits that prolong this mess. The lawsuits will take years to resolve and that will forestall the resolution of fannie and freddie.
I don't believe i've written that they were illegal, they may or may not be that would be subject to judicial review if and when that occurs. Remember, a murder isnt a murder until a conviction occurs.
So, that is my opinion, they are garbage.
This is a travesty, the fhfa has no right to change the business model of fannie / freddie. As conservators they have to operate in a sound sense to restore. Not change. This is a change and is against the law, if fought.
The warrants are trash. They were obtained under and with undue influence at rates not even close to fair value and thus constitute a taking if exercised.
If they are utilized by the greedy government after having been completely repaid their "loan" to the twins lawsuits will come out of the woodwork and nothing will be settled for another 10+ years.
In order for this mess to go away the lawsuits have to be settled; it'll take a massive class action type arrangement where all the interests are considered and paid off.
There is no way the government, no matter how greedy they are, would want to go right back down the same path with countless lawsuits.
So, the warrants are garbage.
No other logic makes any sense.
Exactly my point.
At somepoint there has to be some limits and they must be established. Right now, this mularky about all is all is dumbfounding as its really not.
Where are the bounds?
The government as interpreted by lammy indicates that they have universal power. The have all Rights as to that of shareholders had, they could easily do whatever they want.
So, yes they could write a letter to themselves offering conversion price of JPS 1 share into 1 common share or for every 20 JPS = 1 common and accept whatever they propose on behalf of the share owners as they have the rigghts (seemingly) to do so as ALL rights is ALL rights per Lammy.
Meanwhile, they could apparently do whatever they want to the commons as well. Since they have all the Rights as shareholders.
I guess what I am trying to point out is that frankly, they may not have all these rights afterall and that at some point someone is going to have to decide that all isn't really all. While obviously, its not since the shares still trade and the shares i sold i actually got the money for them.
Sad really, but true the government is out to screw us all.
The question was the conservator is supposed to have assumed ALL rights of the shares of ownership. That's what lammy wrote it meant that all was all.
what you've proposed is a scenario where all was less than all which lammy already said that wasn't the case. That is why the shareowners have failed in every lawsuit around their "rights". So, why not just write them out of existence? Remember all is all, but is it?
That is my point; its ludicrous to thing they've done what they've done and all may not actually mean all. Once that armor is broken, what else isn't all ?
There in lies the fantasy of this shake down, at some point, share holders' rights have to be respected and the government can't just do as they please, there has simply got to be some limits or boundaries.
By stating an indefenseable position of ALL is ALL; the judge has really made a mockery of this; and at some point lines will have to be drawn and a price paid for the theft.
it simply has to happen; at some point.
Under conservatorship the jps have no rights to vote anything that counts because the treasury usurped those rights and gave them to fhfa thru the conservatorship.
Thus jps will take whatever and whenever treasury decides and at what value they decide.
They easily could decide an exercise price of $100 / share or just as easily $1,000 a share. So for every 20 $50 par shares get 1 share common. Its those "rights" and the court has held ALL of those rights have been transferred to treasury. If not ALL rights, then which ones didn't, which is what lammy has said in his previous initial ruling. There is NO limit to the rights xfered to treasury, he said ALL. What part of ALL isn't ALL?
Looks like JPS gonna get the screw driver too.
The issue isn't ripe until / unless exercised. Until then, its just paper and meaningless in the eyes of the judicial system.
The matter is very much in play.
Lamebreath basically said in his opinion, that individual investors expectations at the time of purchase create contracts against which events could be compared.
So, in the case of some, me for example when i started buying fandf in 2008 my expectation was that this was a temporary thing, that they were both well capitalized and basically the whole housing market depended upon them for liquidity. That while they may suffer some loses that unless the world ended they'd be fine and i'd be rewarded handsomely for my investment, just like buying CBS at $4 a share or AER at $2 for example. It was a well reasoned investment backed by the underlying fundamentals, my understanding of the housing market and my expectations. Thus, my damages are real and measurable.
pay me.
Lazybreath really is clueless; but can sure make up some swank.
Cherrios
Wrong.
FandF never needed any money. You don't normally put companies in receivership or liquidation or bankruptcy that ACTUALLY have adequate capital, an abundance of CASH money to pay their bills and honest accounting.
here is were the disazgreement comes to play. They never needed the money.
as for the rate. Treasury rates were near historical lows. As an agency of the governemnt, lending to another, remember it owns thru those BS warrants rights to control 80%; thus they have constructive ownership and charging 10% to yourself is silly. When oustide money - ie. treasury notes were 3% (fed funds if you will).
Meanwhile, tarp lending was what around 4%? and could be paid back.
So, yes,
You are wrong.
Whether anyone challenges this in court or not makes it not right, just means they got away with it.
Be smart.
No amount of justification, will make it right, when it was and is wrong.
ITs interesting that in one case the fhfa has been ruled a government agency and treasury is a government agency and by virtue of standards of effective control 79% interest is obviously control and diluitive that some how charging an interest rate effectively above the true governmernt cost of funds which at the time was closer to 3%; instead a rate 3x this amount - at 10% is not a matter of corruption.
It would be like cocca cola charging a bottling operation in a tax free country 3x the cost of captial on its money and allowing that $$ to be siphoned off shore, etc. at tax preferenced rates. Its simple transfer pricing issues and if for this would not meet muster with the irs why should it for this situation.
10% rate is / was 3x what it should have been; if they actually needed the money, which is debatable in and by itself. They actually didn't need the money but it was pushed upon them.
So, yes i argue and sustain that the 10% rate was unlawful. Under scruitiny it would fail.
The cockroaches will run for cover once the light is shown.
Be the light!
The interesting thing is Mel can assert that his actions were as conservator and thus not subject to review by any court.
If his actions as conservator are subject to review then what other actions of his or his office are subject to judicial review.
Its a total catch 22.
Looks like we have another newbie here.
Welcome to the party.
Do the math yourself, i did.
Also, use a fed funds rate not that draconian 10% and figure in the fhfa' settlements with banks that did not go to fanf.
Afterall, when you lend money to yourself, you don't charge 3x the going rate.
The amount owed back is substantial, its really huge.
All they'd have to do is give back the money they took over what was forced upon them - at a fair interest rate and reboot the machine.
They'd each have quite a bit of capital.
But, hey thats too easy and too complicated to figure out.
grrr
Sadly,
all these criminals have to do is to "extend" them. Remember, as long as its good for the fhfa or fandf (as they define it) then fhfa and treasury can do whatever they want to, by law.
Whatever they want to ....
This is why HERA should be challenged as unconstitutional.
The very premise is Anti-American.
But until someone challenges it we are going to get hosed.
its a rounded estimate.
As good a number as you'll see.
Including all of the corruption including settleing suits on behalf of fannie and freddie / but keeping the money or having it go to some special fund is pard of this theft. Also, the warrants are part of the theft as well - the'd need to be burned. But, considering all the damage the interest and penalties that should be affixed, sure $300B is probably a good number to start with.
Reading the Hindes memo and now Sweeney, i can only imagine if, and i mean if somehow what was right would be done.
Imagine if, some how, despite the largeness of the numbers which will probably stop the judge from allowing or agreeing that somehow, the government would be held accountable for the full 10 years of theft?
One big reason, that they will not allow this is the number the amount of theft is so large as to be a problem on the economy and that for that reason will probably not be allowed. In otherwords, the theft, some near $300Billion is so large that to have to return that amount of $$ to the companies and shareholders would be so devestating on the treasury of the US as to make it really unliely that they'll agree to it.
So, is it at all possible? I mean, sure, its wrong and we've been harmed, but the good of us shareholders, and the companies and doing the right thing pales in comparison to the damage to be done in unwinding the theft. Thus, the judges are going to reason that they can not unwind the theft or truly the unconstitutional make up of HERA. That being that hera says its actions aren't subject to review.
So, the government has stolen 300B - will they be held accountable?
The arguments, the takings, the one sided dealings are all lawful under HERA, sure its abundantly clear to any 1st grader that you can't steal and you can't self promote and you can't do exactly what treasury and fhfa has done.
the problem is fhfa has been granted thru Hera the ability to do ANY thing because under hera anything is lawful and Hera says it can't be reviewed.
So two pronged approach
1. attack hera
and
2. attack third parties for accepting the $$ or the takings its been given. (your argument) which is treasury, can't be a party to this transaction because it violates the takings clause. Thus while fhfa can suck all the money and value out of f and f they can't give it to anyone or treasury because that would be participating in an scheme to defraud investors and steal. Go after those getting the graft not the ones doing it (because Hera) says it can. Essentially, treasury has gotten ill gotten gains, like in the madoff thing. Where innocent people got $$ contributions from madoff, they had no idea the money was tainted so they had to give it back.
To me unwinding hera is the way to do this. Hera's powers are too broad and unconsititional to be granted. In esseance, watt as fhfa director has no bounds as long as its in the best interest of fhfa. Think about that! How is that possible? Not in a civil society; but Hera makes him a dictator. A geni if you will. Time to put all that power into a tiny little box. Do that by taking away his trading partners.
The Last judge said that fhfa has the right to do the nws because they can do anything that is in their (the fhfa's) best interest. That giving away 100% of the value to treasury may be bad for shareholders, but that is not the question.
So, what gave fhfa the power to steal? Hera... its hera you got to fight not the nws. The nws is like fighting a fever as opposed to the cold.
fight the cold.
The case for unconstitional hera has already been made by the judge. He gave us the answer to the question. Just now go phrase the question.
They've ruled that hera says things are above review and fhfa can act unilaterally without impunity and with no tangible bounds.
That is the basis for the ruling. Just go ask the question. As the answer has been concreted in and fhfa and govnerment has to live with it. They got to cutesy. They've been painted into a corner. Heck of a strategy by plaintiff counsel but its over.
Hera blows up.
Its broader than the unconstitutional fhfa, its Hera that is the bad seed from which fhfa sprang.
The hole in Hera is exactly what the last judge ruled.
It allows things that are overly broad, confiscatory and takings with out compensation, question or judicial review.
All Watt has to do is say that his actions any of his actions are in the best interest of fhfa and HERA, by law says they are beyond question.
How far that stretches will play out soon enough, but that is what the judges have said it means. Which to me, is what is wrong, you can't have that and you can't allow things that are against the constitution or other laws (?) prevail. Hera doesn't trump all the other laws and the constititution now does it?
If it does, then that is where the problem lies.
Go after Hera.
Problem here as i read the most recent judicial opinion is what they are saying is under HERA the fhfa can do anything it deems in its best interest as conservator of F&F. And that includes, anything.
However, the key boot here is that all of which they do is beyond judicial review. Therefore, anything done, any agreement any contract any any thing is not subject to review and is not controlled by any boundaries.
So, yes it say, it can give away all the assets of the company if in the fhfa's opinion its in their best interest. And no you can't argue it.
Seems then the real problem is with HERA.
Hera, provides such broad powers as to be unconstitutional - that is the key thing.
For example, normally in the takings clause you have to provide fair value for what you take. Under Hera, you don't. Under Hera, all you had to do is create a dummy contract, give some money that is fully collateralized and repaid, and then change the agreement to take whatever you want. And do so at NO cost to the fhfa.
That is where the rubber meets the road. Hera is what provides these unencumbered powers that needs to be challenged. Not the effects of it. They've been challenging the wrong thing.
Challenge HERA!
HA HA....
Been saying this for a long time.
Best thing to do is wrap all of the actions into a class action and settle it. Wipe clean all the claims and pay out some money to the shareholders. Something like $3 per share per year as allocated pro-rata for period being held. For example if you held shares for 6 months you get 1.50. or half.
the lawsuits have to be resolved before breaking conservatorship.
What really bothers me is the dishonesty at the top of the federal government.
The know they are doing wrong. They know their predessesors did wrong and they know its wrong to continue stealing billions from the american people. Yet, they continue to do it with no reprucussions, no concious to do the right thing. Its like civility and honesty toking a back seat to absolute corruption at the most critical time.
why do they do this and continue to do this. How incredibly dishonest.
What would the logic be for it not being 10%?
Remember because the governement controls 80% of the companies thru warrants, as if exercised, they really are like part of the government, that charged itself, 10% interest rate. That rate was good for FandF to pay even though the money was guaranteed by the same government and in effect without risk, therefore, they really already set the applicable rate on self dealing at 10% .
Why of course they should be owed interest at 10% on the overpayments.
This amount should be starting to pile up.
The surplus noted does not count the interest earnings on the surplus at 10% that treasury owes.
This makes the number much much higher.
Its amazing that a recording / transcripts of a private conversation can be made public in just 2 years or less and it takes 10 years to provide even 1 of some 11000 documents kept hidden.
Sounds like we should consider a Me Too charge to get some documents moving.
While i do not favor a "utility" model. I do see utilities as very profitable and well capitalized that pay a nice dividend based upon earnings and have a market value in accordance with their profitability.
Basically, a utility would perform like a "bank". At 15 Billion earnings would give a market value at 10x of 150B. After some adjustment for preferred shares, with 1.1B shares outstanding would provide for share value of $130 or so. At a dividend rate of around 2.1% would be almost $3 a share per year.
It would be sorrowful to be bounded by these constraints, but at even 1/2 this it would be acceptable although not desirable.
Here is what is befuddling to me..
The Fhfa was found to be unconstitutional yet they get to keep all the acts of an unconstitutional make up.
How very odd...
The courts normally throw out things done unconstitutionally. For example an unlawful search... all the stuff collected gets tossed out.
or you don't get "mirandized" and then anything you say, can't be used against you.
I see the simple parallels yet the acts of an unconstitutional being is allowed to reap rewards?
Can't this be "pushed".
No it doesn't make me wonder.
Generally speaking judges are fairly incompetent as to the subject matter upon which they "rule". They simply don't have the time to become experts on everything and have to leave it to the legal counsel to tell them what to think. Then, they just pick the side they want to believe in no matter how stupid the argument.
Yes, judges like lawyers generally are incompetent, in my experience and suborn themselves and the laws as a way to hide behind their conjecture.
Sorry, but the real chances of hitting on an intelligent judge that also give a hoot; is very small.
But, there is a chance however, small.
This is just temporary. Right now the equity in the companies bares no measure to the respective earnings capacity or what things should be.
If i'd had couple bucks in the account extra, i'd swap freddie stock for fannie and leverage the difference for a few more shares.
peace.
Because the warrants are worth Billions, why won't someone spend millions ?
So, instead of your 5M shares being worth 770M they'd be worth only 154M and you say no one would spend 10M fighting the illegal taking of equity?
Really?
Hmmm
Accounting rules provide for computation of EPS based upon fully diluted basis, if the warrants or other excerciseable commonstock equivalents are in the money.
Since the warrants are at 1/1000000000th of a cent, they are in the money and thus "as if" excercised for disclosure purposes as they are outstanding.
That is why.
Personally, i think the warrants are fruit of a poison tree (the pspa) which makes them garbage and if excercised an absolute defacto taking since they were set at a price so far below market value as to make them vomit.
But that's just my take.