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.
There's many different forms of restructuring. It's quite obvious that in the context he was referring to was recapitalizing. It's common knowledge that in order to be released, it must be recapped. Multiple bills in Congress addressing this issue. All I can say is watch and see.
The definition of restructuring doesn't have to include capital. It's the reshaping of the assets and liabilities of a business for a going-concern entity. A going concern is the opposite of liquidation.
A liquidation is not a restructuring. It just isn't lol.
That's true but a merger is a restructuring because after the merger has taken place, the STRUCTURE of the business has changed.
Don't want one.
Ran out of free posts yesterday so couldn't respond.
Liquidation is not a restructuring or a type of. Liquidation is a liquidation. A restructuring is a restructuring. Two completely opposite things. They call it a restructuring because the intent is to restructure the business in order to keep the business operating. A liquidation is quite the opposite. The intent is to go out of business.
All restructurings involve the use of capital. Not all capital is in the form of cash, which is the only distinction. Restructuring and recapitalization is the same thing, in all situations.
"Restructuring is a type of corporate action taken when significantly modifying the debt, operations or structure of a company as a means of potentially eliminating financial harm and improving the business."
I didn't notice a link that shows this definition coming from a financial source.
Look up the definition of restructure. Then we won't need to argue about it.
It isn't clear to you, maybe. It's very clear to me.
Financial terms do not change their meaning. They are universal to the markets regardless of industry.
Clearly a release is in support of the longs. His statement wasn't vague to me at all. In structured finance, certain words mean certain things. Restructure is the same word as recapitalize. How he will restructure was not stated. Will he do it with common shares, preferred shares, bonds, that was not expressed, but the fact that the company will be recapped was stated because that's what restructure means.
Absolutely.
Section 311 was later amended to the Garrett proposal that was rejected BUT later made apart of HERA. Follow the bill number and you'll see that.
Just a coincidence that Paulson needed HERA in order to establish conservatorship and that he publicly stated that he wasn't interested in handing over the GSE's capital but wanted a regulator before he made such capital injections. It's all coincidence. In any event, I'm finished.
And one last piece of evidence from the congressional record regarding debate over the bill:
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from New York is
recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to briefly discuss the
turmoil in the financial markets, especially with regard to Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. Let me be clear, Fannie and Freddie are too important
to fail. Their fundamentals, as they look now, provide no reason to
think they will fail. We all know how important they are.
These two institutions are the foundation of the mortgage market, and
we fully stand behind them and their crucial role. Without Fannie and
Freddie, housing markets would come to an utter standstill and our
economy, shaky as it is, would sink much deeper. Therefore, we should
take all necessary steps to ensure affordable home ownership for
millions of American families, and that includes preserving the
essential role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play.
Our Nation is caught in the middle of one of the most severe housing
downturns since the Great Depression, so it is not surprising that the
two institutions that guarantee $5 trillion worth of mortgages for
families across America are now facing real significant challenges. But
the markets' overreaction over the past 2 days is more based on
psychology than reality.
Over the past few days, Treasury Secretary Paulson, James Lockhart,
the GSE's primary regulator, the Federal Reserve, and Chairman
Bernanke, and leading Senators, including both parties' candidates for
President, have all clearly stated their confidence in Fannie and
Freddie and the Government's commitment to keeping those institutions
safe and secure.
That commitment has not changed and will not change.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are well capitalized. They are actually
holding capital in excess of their current requirements.
In these volatile markets--in these volatile markets--share price is
not the most reliable measure for judging Fannie and Freddie and will
not dictate the responses by the regulators. Rather, the regulators are
more closely watching the performance of Fannie's and Freddie's bonds
and how their yields compare to U.S. treasuries. Right now, Freddie and
Fannie bonds are trading closer to treasuries than they were in March
after the Bear Stearns collapse, and that is a reassuring signal.
The stock markets may be overreacting, but the regulators should not
and will not. I have talked to them on a regular basis today, and I can
assure Americans in the markets that they are very much on top of this
problem, they are looking at it in a careful, thoughtful, but
nonpanicky and nonrush way.
We do not believe the regulators will be forced to act, but if they
are, it is not a choice between inaction or full-blown receivership
because there is more than one way to shore up Fannie and Freddie, if
necessary. There are countless intermediate steps that regulators could
take before ever having to entertain a Government takeover.
The regulators are preparing for worst-case scenarios. But developing
contingency plans does not mean that disaster is around the corner. By
simply being prepared, the Government can restore confidence that these
institutions will remain safe and secure and continue to function in
their essential role as the cornerstone of the mortgage markets for
decades to come.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
It is beyond clear, to me, that Hank Paulson is who recommended the establishment of the FHFA. Actually, there's no question about it to me.
On July 23, 2008 Barney Frank recommended an amendment to the Housing and Economic Recovery Act to include a provision that establishes the FHFA. Until then, the bill did not include such a provision. So although the President was talking primarily about the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 that passed in October, he also addressed the establishment of a regulator which was part of Paulson's Plan, as the President mentioned. Since Paulson isn't a member of the senate or house, clearly he can't physically submit a bill which is why he used Barney Frank who already had the Dodd-Frank bill moving through congress at the time. Submitting an amendment to include the creation of the FHFA just days after the President's press conference is not a coincidence, especially when he expressly mentions in the conference that the plan "should have been a part of the bill that's currently moving through congress".
I'm not arguing whether you're right or not. I was simply providing evidence to support my initial belief. I watched this interview years ago and I'd hope you can see how someone would take away from that meeting a belief that Paulson played a primary role in the FHFA's creation, not whether that is true or not.
You didn't hear President Bush say "the plan", which includes forming a new regulator, was Paulson's plan?
Of course he can't. With the exception of Mnuchin who technically represents the interests of Trump, neither Carson or Trump have ever said that.
A subject from the past: did Hank Paulson help create the FHFA? My answer was yes and I was challenged. At the time, I couldn't produce the evidence I remember seeing. I've found that now. However, it requires you to watch more than a few minutes of this press conference that took place in July of 2008. The president was clear as to under who's direction Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac would be placed under conservatorship, as well as who made the decisions to create a "regulator" [FHFA] to oversee their operations. He mentioned it was Hank Paulson's plan on more than one occasion.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?206396-1/presidential-news-conference&start=340
Uh...yes I have. lol. Pretty much anyone with an online brokerage account can purchase during the pre & post market, depending on if there's a broker available for the transaction. This isn't a depateble issue.
No, that's not how it works. If there's a pre-market and after-market, retail has the same access to it as institutions. I've traded many times pre and post market.
In order for a transaction to go to tape, obviously there must be a buyer and a seller. One can not exist without the other.
You have to have a clear worked out reason why you feel it's suspicious which includes submitting evidence or they'll toss your complaint in the garbage, and rather quickly.
I still can't figure out why anyone is complaining about a trade that didn't affect the share price.
The price doesn't move with many trades. I don't quite understand the question.
That makes no sense. That would be market manipulation. Obits explanation makes the most sense to me.
That's true.