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.
Yes, for 4 months
Calabria thinks he has a year to negotiate with treasury.
Sure likes to take his time.
They're taking a break from chatting and buying more common.
This is a huge shift in responsibility from DOJ to HUD
Sanctions being put in place against TBTF to prevent fraud happening again to Fannie & Freddie. Well done Ben Carson!
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/zacks-analyst-blog-highlights-bank-150603927.html
This is huge shift in authority from DOJ to HUD
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/zacks-analyst-blog-highlights-bank-150603927.html
Paying dividends in 2 - 3 years is a long wait. Why would new investors invest next year?
IPO in Q2 or Q3???
What's the hold up?
Shows good day for commons coming.
Unconstitutionally structured Calabria is so inept he knows FnF can't do anything except what is in their charters yet he tells them to do otherwise.
Only Congress can issue CHARTERS to ignite competition. Calabria knows that well. He also knows that Congress is unable to accomplish anything. He should stay out of the competition dialogue- and let Congress deal with that as they may.
Tell me, just what does Calabria do?
We'll said. FHFA acts like they have a say but they don't.
What do Crypto symbols mean?
You sure about that after the 5th circuit ruling?
Consider this: Maybe FHFA not subject to another federal agency, but what about a person who just happens to be employed at FHFA?
FHFA NOT SUBJECT to ANY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY
when ACTING as CONSERVATOR or RECEIVOR !!!!
Try telling Treasury that FHFA is not subject to their supervision.
Try telling Treasury that FHFA is not subject to their supervision.
I thought it was November 18
What Happen At SCOTUS Oct. 18th ?
I think there is some internal decision, but . . . .
Doess the Federal Reserve pay for FHFA or does the stolen money from FnF pay for FHFA?
He doesn't work for anybody which is why his little agencey is unconstitutional. The Federal reserve pays him so that's who owns him
Maybe ABA gave Foster the questions to ask.
Interesting- that the AMERICAN BANKERS ASSN- is one of REPRESENTATIVE BILL FOSTER’S largest contributor. Moreover- Mnuchin- should have told the COMMIE AOC- we still are a Country that believes in Capitalism. Although- Mnuchin and Calabria’s remark make me question this.
Calabria looked smug after he said that. Thx for the clip, first time I listened to it.
Foster and Calabria Exchange - Affordable Housing Hearing - 10/22/2019
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4824072/affordable-housing-hearing-10222019-foster-calabria-exchange
Watch at: 4:17
FHFA has lost sight that their responsibility is to conserve and preserve FnF.
Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mark Calabria sounds like he works for the SEC...
Quote:
Calabria said it's not his aim to wipe out or enrich shareholders and that he'd do what it takes to make sure taxpayers aren't on the hook for losses at Fannie and Freddie, the two government-sponsored enterprises that have been under U.S. conservatorship since 2008.
So like the SEC they shut down companies to protect investors from losing their investments...? Whaaaat? LOL
That's Calarbria speak, if he said it at all, is to mean circumstances don't call for it.
Fannie Watchdog Willing to Wipe Out Shareholders If Necessary
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/fannie-watchdog-willing-wipe-shareholders-161920168.html
"(Bloomberg) -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator said he would be willing take steps that would wipe out shareholders of the mortgage giants if circumstances called for it."
Maxine is too late. The courts have this. Alternatively Trump can issue an executive order. Enough already.
Not good at all. The intent is to tie the hands of FHFA, preventing them from making any changes to the conservancy. The original version of this tied the hands of FHFA from 2015 until 2017.
The idea is to keep things just as they are until congress can legislate changes to Fannie and Freddie - then they can be released. And we know that if we wait for congress - that would be never.
--------
Quote:
Oh Boy... Maxine Waters time
On Tuesday 10/22 https://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=404485
“, Discussion draft that would prevent the Treasury Secretary from selling preferred stock of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and require the FHFA Director to provide Congress with 30 days’ notice before making any policy changes [DRAFT]”
So this means Warrants can not be executed in selling SPS which will not dilute commons. This leaves Mnuchin only one choice if this draft bill passes... credit, cancel and write off treasury’s warrants to help release the GSES!!!
Maybe Waters bought a ton of common stock.
RC - this is a fascinating development. If there is enough bipartisan support to prevent Treasury from redeeming the SPS, one would assume superficially that would be good for shareholders. Waters is a dem, I’m assuming republicans would be against impediments to recap & release which I believe the SPS/warrants are.
Maybe, just maybe, even the policy makers are sick and tired of this saga and want it to end. Time will tell.
It still just irritates me that FnF will take direction from unconstitutional FHFA but will to expedite move forward
When they reach the new threshold will Calabria just up it again?
jtimothyhoward - OCTOBER 18, 2019 AT 9:00 AM
I’ve seen the speculation that Fannie and Freddie’s current statutory minimum capital requirements might be used as triggers for releasing the companies from conservatorship under a consent decree–and also noted that the amount of capital they’re being allowed to retain by foregoing their net worth sweep payments is a few billion higher than these minimum capital numbers–but I’m not convinced this is what will happen.
I find it difficult to imagine that Calabria will release Fannie and Freddie from conservatorship before their new capital requirements have been determined and announced, and these will include new minimums as well as the risk-based numbers.
For the minimums, I think FHFA will go with “Alternative 2” in its June 2018 proposal– 1.5 percent of trust assets and 4 percent of non-trust assets, which would push Fannie’s minimum up to $59 billion compared with $22 billion under the old standard.
The question I keep asking myself is, “How could FHFA justify releasing Fannie and Freddie based on hitting their old minimums after their new, much higher, minimums are known?”
Maybe they’ll just do it anyway, but I’m not sold on that.
An alternative would be for FHFA to make companies’ release point the attainment of their critical capital levels, which are half the minimum requirements.
For Fannie under what I think the new minimums will be–and assuming today’s balance sheet size and composition–that would amount to little less than $30 billion in capital. As always, though, we shall see.
Calabria is trying to save face because he didn't want FnF to exit Cship until the end of his 5 year term. This is being forced on him.
Quote:
Once the GSEs reach their statutory capital levels, they’re considered
“undercapitalized” rather than “significantly undercapitalized” under FSSA.
Although the language is far from clear, Calabria seems to believe this
change in status serves as a threshold for exiting conservatorship
Sounds to me that we can expect in November for Calabria to announce that they do not need to re-propose capital rule.
"should be able to announce in the next couple weeks whether they will re-propose the capital rule or not".
Why is Calabria talking about re-proposing capital rule?
Sounds like another mis-statement.
Watt to Calabria, FHFA Directors
If you look at the court document, you will see the court complaint document still has Melvin L. Watt as the defendant on paper. I am quite sure about this , but court may be posted for another date to allow the court document to be corrected from Watt to Munchin as the current FHFA director.
Stickies can only be removed by the moderator who posted the sticky.
TRCPA - are the issues before the 8th circuit the same as those decided by the 5th circuit? Seemed like they were regarding the 5th circuit 12 to 2 ruling on the lower court dismissal regarding actions taken by fhfa/treasury do not sync with the definition of conservatorship. The lower court should not have summarily ruled in favor of the Gov and should’ve proceeded to trial.
The other items were retrospective relief relating to an unconstitutional agency, and the constitutionality of the FHFA regarding a single appointed agency head instead of a committee based agency. There was a fascinating term I can’t recall that the plaintiff’s attorney used for referring to alternate outcomes if, in the example he referenced, the FHFA was structured differently. I liked the term - can’t remember.
Also, the sticky I had up on the board that has disappeared with all the others - assuming automated timing removal - had the en banc ruling from the 5th circuit. The 5th circuit noted which circuits had the same arguments and facts before them and which circuits did not. I don’t recall if the 8th had the same issues and facts. One judge did make a reference to the 5th circuit in the audio.
If the arguments and facts are largely the same between the two circuits I assume the odds are in our favor for a positive ruling. Although, after following an intllectual property case for over 7 years, predicting the outcome from a legal standpoint is next to impossible.
Interesting that the article came out after the recording of the Bhatti case.
Calabria may have a little better than 1 year at his job, but that's the most.
https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sr1mjf
#FANNIEGATE
Washington Analysis report today...
"Still expect fourth amendment to PSPAs and FHFA capital rule near year-end. We continue to expect
the senior preferred shares to be deemed paid back as part of a fourth amendment to the PSPAs, despite
Treasury’s stake growing as a result of the letter agreements. We expect the GSEs to receive tax credits in amounts
equal to the difference between: (a) total dividend/sweep payments from the GSEs since 2008; and (b)
Treasury’s capital injections + 10% interest. This would be around $20-25 billion that we think is likely to serve
as a plank in the foundation of new capital at both entities.
We expect the fourth amendment to end the net worth sweep, in addition to pricing a periodic commitment fee
that compensates Treasury for the continued entity-level backstop of both GSEs (currently a ~$250 billion line
of credit).
Finally, we also expect FHFA to finalize its proposed post-conservatorship capital rule for the GSEs near yearend, or sometime in Q1 2020. We give the edge to the rule being finalized without having to be re-proposed, as
some observers have speculated. However, either way we do not see the timing of the capital rule as critical for
shareholders. In our opinion, FHFA merely needs to finalize the rule by mid-2020, [color=red]so as to avoid restructuring
risk under a potential new administration (and new FHFA director) in 2021."
That board existed, but it's already deleted.
If you type in FNMA in the search engine on ihub and scroll down to the FNMA listings you will see it as the second listing. This FNMA is the first.
Neither FHFA nor Treasury have existing authority to write an agreement with FnF.
If you accept that they do have authority to write an agreement that is great for shareholders, then you also accept that they do have authority to write an agreement not great for shareholders.
Calabria has no advantage at FHFA now because the courts said FHFA was unconstitutionally structured. I see no benefit of having FHFA at all, it is not allowed to sweep 1 single red penny from FnF.
Possibly a dozen or so regulators to monitor fees, etc. These regulators do not need an entire agency to do their job. Maybe have them report to either HUD or Treasury.
?
please elaborate
what story
and why is it to the advantage of Calabria
If Treasury/FHFA/GOV can "consent agree" to something good for us at F and F (or FHFA if its Treasury) ---- why is that not great
Wow. Give yourself the Eagle Eye award.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/getboards.aspx?searchstr=fnma
It's only for fnma. fmcc does not have it.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/getboards.aspx?searchstr=fmcc
Please explain your question further.
Just to whom is FnF going to consent?
FHFA is unconstitutional and Treasury is not the conservator of FnF.
I scream BS, this is a story Calabria is spinning as if he has any legal say.
very interesting
who would be party to a consent decree --- FHFA and Treasury or more (courts - plaintiffs - ?)
And what might it look like
I will get educated on this step by step and more so if it looks like the exit that solves a lot of problems that otherwise take way too long or dilute us way too much
I remain very focused on warrants and SPS ---- key to dilution amount
Mnuchin, phase 1 agreements with China almost done. Then onto phase 2. Let's hope he works in time for FnF https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/10/14/watch-cnbcs-full-interview-with-secretary-steven-mnuchin-on-china-trade-progress.html
Mnuchin maybe talking about China.
With Maren Kasper abruptly leaving Ginnie Mae October 18, it looks more and more like a merger among Fannie Freddie Ginnie.