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.
Could very well be that - as written the numbers are even larger, considering Treasury would seemingly owe 5% on the excess money.
Thanks for validating my original posts.
JM
Ob1
Here is what I don't get.
How can the White House be involved with FHFA through the Treasury and the decisions made when the FHFA was supposed to be independent?
Are we discussing Treasury ~ WHouse communications? or are they debating the FHFA's involvement with the White House.
If the documents kept hidden were to show involvement with FHFA through the Treasury, isn't that a problem with the separation and independence of FHFA?
Are these at odds?
JM
Absence of information to the contrary - you'd apply simple interest calculations to the recalc and go from there.
Its not rocket science as others want to make out. Its very very simple. The key thing is instead of 10% rate initially charged its adjusted to 5%. This will naturally produce excess to apply to principal and thus lower balances carried forward to the next period. Where, we know what was paid, but now compare to a lower carry cost due to lower rate and amortization of the principal.
Several on here have run basic figures; this is very easy to apply. Don't let others blow smoke.
Do not ...
Cap's bill 491 - proposes to recharacterize payments as interest/principal payments at 5% rate as oppose to 10% that was initially charged and of course the NWS - that has taken everything.
Doing this, following Cap's proposed bill - results in the government owing around $40B to the GSE's.
Obit,
I get it that you are wanting separate loan schedules. But its really not necessary to understand the math.
In this instance while, his bill "requires" separate stuff and calculations, in the big picture for this analysis its really moot. Fact is separate loans would get us to pretty much the same spot. Couple of bucks one way or another. Its how and why Buffet can do deals working on a napkin and others require an algorithm. Its the beauty of pre-payments on loans it allows for faster amortizations and gets the payer quickly off of the original loan schedule. He clearly says to apply excess to principal. Dollars are fungible asset so it doesn't matter which "principal" to apply to; at the same cost its the same remainder.
You are stuck on the literal writing of the proposed bill. But to understand what would occur, its not necessary.
Thanks for all you do and much appreciated.
JM
Bc...de
Thank you for reviewing the calculations and understanding the simple math being applied.
Yes, Cap's bill is very favorable.
It puts near $40B in equity back on the books of the two.
Simple way to recap them is to treat them fairly.
Now if they would give them the bounty they took for the settlements on their behalf that did not go to them directly.
Next would be a settlement to the shareholders. Canceling the warrants and another $40B in shared / settlement pro-rata would do the trick and we'd be done with this mess they created.
Obi,
For this exercise, each draw or annual total does not have to be presented in separate loans, the math gets you to the exact same spot regardless of presentation.
On the basis of loan - v draw and repayment my presentation is sound.
I'll try your "pre" thing - alternatively just copy and paste into excel and then use the text to columns using the space criteria.
Old Old Old Old Old Old New New New New New
Date Rate Int Charged Draw Paid Bal Rate Int Recalc Draw Paid Bal
9/30/2008 10% - 0 0 - 5% - - 0 -
12/31/2008 10% 0.025 15.2 0.025 15.20 5% 0.013 15.20 0.025 15.19
3/31/2009 10% 0.025 19 0.025 34.20 5% 0.012 19.000 0.025 34.17
6/30/2009 10% 0.409 10.7 0.409 44.90 5% 0.204 10.70 0.409 44.67
9/30/2009 10% 0.885 15 0.885 59.90 5% 0.440 15.000 0.885 59.23
12/31/2009 10% 1.150 15.3 1.150 75.20 5% 0.569 15.30 1.150 73.94
3/31/2010 10% 1.527 8.4 1.527 83.60 5% 0.751 8.400 1.527 81.57
6/30/2010 10% 1.909 1.5 1.909 85.10 5% 0.931 1.50 1.909 82.09
9/30/2010 10% 2.117 2.5 2.117 87.60 5% 1.021 2.500 2.117 83.49
12/31/2010 10% 2.153 2.6 2.153 90.20 5% 1.026 2.60 2.153 84.97
3/31/2011 10% 2.216 8.5 2.216 98.70 5% 1.044 8.500 2.216 92.29
6/30/2011 10% 2.281 5.087 2.281 103.79 5% 1.066 5.09 2.281 96.17
9/30/2011 10% 2.495 7.791 2.495 111.58 5% 1.156 7.791 2.495 102.62
12/13/2011 10% 2.621 4.571 2.621 116.15 5% 1.205 4.57 2.621 105.77
3/31/2012 10% 2.819 - 2.819 116.15 5% 1.284 - 2.819 104.24
6/30/2012 10% 2.931 - 2.931 116.15 5% 1.315 - 2.931 102.62
9/30/2012 10% 2.929 - 2.929 116.15 5% 1.294 - 2.929 100.99
12/31/2012 10% 2.929 - 2.929 116.15 5% 1.273 - 2.929 99.33
3/31/2013 Sweep 4.224 - 4.224 116.15 5% 1.242 - 4.224 96.35
6/30/2013 na 59.368 - 59.368 116.15 5% 1.204 - 59.368 38.19
9/30/2013 na 10.243 - 10.243 116.15 5% 0.477 - 10.243 28.42
12/31/2013 na 8.617 - 8.617 116.15 5% 0.355 - 8.617 20.16
3/31/2014 na 7.192 - 7.192 116.15 5% 0.252 - 7.192 13.22
6/30/2014 na 5.692 - 5.692 116.15 5% 0.165 - 5.692 7.69
9/30/2014 na 3.712 - 3.712 116.15 5% 0.096 - 3.712 4.08
12/31/2014 na 3.999 - 3.999 116.15 5% 0.051 - 3.999 0.13
3/31/2015 na 1.920 - 1.920 116.15 5% 0.002 - 1.920 (1.79)
6/30/2015 na 1.796 - 1.796 116.15 5% (0.022) - 1.796 (3.61)
9/30/2015 na 4.359 - 4.359 116.15 5% (0.045) - 4.359 (8.01)
12/31/2015 na 2.202 - 2.202 116.15 5% (0.100) - 2.202 (10.31)
3/31/2016 na 2.859 - 2.859 116.15 5% (0.129) - 2.859 (13.30)
6/30/2016 na 0.919 - 0.919 116.15 5% (0.166) - 0.919 (14.39)
9/30/2016 na 2.869 - 2.869 116.15 5% (0.180) - 2.869 (17.44)
12/31/2016 na 2.976 - 2.976 116.15 5% (0.218) - 2.976 (20.63)
Totals Totals 154.368 116.149 154.368 Totals Totals 17.589 116.149 154.368 Totals
Thanks Boo,
It glad you understand the concept I was trying to present. Sure, its not exact, I'm not getting paid to deliver court ready report, but, by all reasonable standards, its spot on.
ie. its on the green.
Peace
Fannie's Amort Schedule - recast
This shows payments made first to interest at 5% and then principal.
Old Old Old Old Old Old New New New New New
Date Rate Int Charged Draw Paid Bal Rate Int Recalc Draw Paid Bal
9/30/2008 10% - 0 0 - 5% - - 0 -
12/31/2008 10% 0.025 15.2 0.025 15.20 5% 0.013 15.20 0.025 15.19
3/31/2009 10% 0.025 19 0.025 34.20 5% 0.012 19.000 0.025 34.17
6/30/2009 10% 0.409 10.7 0.409 44.90 5% 0.204 10.70 0.409 44.67
9/30/2009 10% 0.885 15 0.885 59.90 5% 0.440 15.000 0.885 59.23
12/31/2009 10% 1.150 15.3 1.150 75.20 5% 0.569 15.30 1.150 73.94
3/31/2010 10% 1.527 8.4 1.527 83.60 5% 0.751 8.400 1.527 81.57
6/30/2010 10% 1.909 1.5 1.909 85.10 5% 0.931 1.50 1.909 82.09
9/30/2010 10% 2.117 2.5 2.117 87.60 5% 1.021 2.500 2.117 83.49
12/31/2010 10% 2.153 2.6 2.153 90.20 5% 1.026 2.60 2.153 84.97
3/31/2011 10% 2.216 8.5 2.216 98.70 5% 1.044 8.500 2.216 92.29
6/30/2011 10% 2.281 5.087 2.281 103.79 5% 1.066 5.09 2.281 96.17
9/30/2011 10% 2.495 7.791 2.495 111.58 5% 1.156 7.791 2.495 102.62
12/13/2011 10% 2.621 4.571 2.621 116.15 5% 1.205 4.57 2.621 105.77
3/31/2012 10% 2.819 - 2.819 116.15 5% 1.284 - 2.819 104.24
6/30/2012 10% 2.931 - 2.931 116.15 5% 1.315 - 2.931 102.62
9/30/2012 10% 2.929 - 2.929 116.15 5% 1.294 - 2.929 100.99
12/31/2012 10% 2.929 - 2.929 116.15 5% 1.273 - 2.929 99.33
3/31/2013 Sweep 4.224 - 4.224 116.15 5% 1.242 - 4.224 96.35
6/30/2013 na 59.368 - 59.368 116.15 5% 1.204 - 59.368 38.19
9/30/2013 na 10.243 - 10.243 116.15 5% 0.477 - 10.243 28.42
12/31/2013 na 8.617 - 8.617 116.15 5% 0.355 - 8.617 20.16
3/31/2014 na 7.192 - 7.192 116.15 5% 0.252 - 7.192 13.22
6/30/2014 na 5.692 - 5.692 116.15 5% 0.165 - 5.692 7.69
9/30/2014 na 3.712 - 3.712 116.15 5% 0.096 - 3.712 4.08
12/31/2014 na 3.999 - 3.999 116.15 5% 0.051 - 3.999 0.13
3/31/2015 na 1.920 - 1.920 116.15 5% 0.002 - 1.920 (1.79)
6/30/2015 na 1.796 - 1.796 116.15 5% (0.022) - 1.796 (3.61)
9/30/2015 na 4.359 - 4.359 116.15 5% (0.045) - 4.359 (8.01)
12/31/2015 na 2.202 - 2.202 116.15 5% (0.100) - 2.202 (10.31)
3/31/2016 na 2.859 - 2.859 116.15 5% (0.129) - 2.859 (13.30)
6/30/2016 na 0.919 - 0.919 116.15 5% (0.166) - 0.919 (14.39)
9/30/2016 na 2.869 - 2.869 116.15 5% (0.180) - 2.869 (17.44)
12/31/2016 na 2.976 - 2.976 116.15 5% (0.218) - 2.976 (20.63)
In the end they are owed $21B
Sure, its not by "year" and not by the last draw of the year, etc. but the spirit is the same.
Paid in full.
Obi,
If you don't understand what I put forth. You don't understand amortization schedules and how simple interest works.
What I have presented is the factual draws and interest payments recast to reflect 5% on a quarterly basis -v the 10% and then NWS for the entirety of the relationship as stated in Cap's 491.
What you failed to do is apply the payments already made that would reduce the principal far faster than the schedule you put forth. In Home Lending, its just a prepayment. That you failed to reflect.
(3)Treatment of dividends paid
That any dividends paid by the enterprise to the Department of the Treasury under the Senior Preferred Stock Agreement before such modification of such Agreement shall be treated as payments of principal and interest due under the loan referred to in paragraph (2), and shall be credited against payments due under the terms of such loan (in accordance with the amortization schedule established for such loan pursuant to paragraph (2)(E)), first to such loan having the earliest origination date that has not yet been fully repaid until such loan is repaid, and then to the next such loan having the next earliest origination date until such loan is repaid.
This means applying payments previously made to interest first and then to principal. the effect is to re-amortize the existing extension of credit (as re characterized)
Obi,
I've cut and pasted the excel numbers below. It assumes the 5% rate is used from the start as per Cap's 491 and applying all the payments to interest / then to principal.
Once the loan is repaid; it pays Freddie $$ at 5% same as it was re-charged.
Old Old Old Old Old Old New New New New New
Date Rate Int Charged Draw Paid Bal Rate Int Recalc Draw Paid Bal
9/30/2008 10% - 13.800 0 13.800 5% - 13.800 0 13.800
12/31/2008 10% 0.167 30.800 0.167 44.60 5% 0.084 30.80 0.167 44.52
3/31/2009 10% 0.370 6.100 0.370 50.70 5% 0.185 6.100 0.370 50.43
6/30/2009 10% 1.149 - 1.149 50.70 5% 0.571 - 1.149 49.85
9/30/2009 10% 1.294 - 1.294 50.70 5% 0.636 - 1.294 49.20
12/31/2009 10% 1.293 - 1.293 50.70 5% 0.627 - 1.293 48.53
3/31/2010 10% 1.293 10.600 1.293 61.30 5% 0.619 10.600 1.293 58.46
6/30/2010 10% 1.293 1.800 1.293 63.10 5% 0.617 1.80 1.293 59.58
9/30/2010 10% 1.560 0.100 1.560 63.20 5% 0.736 0.100 1.560 58.86
12/31/2010 10% 1.603 0.500 1.603 63.70 5% 0.746 0.50 1.603 58.50
3/31/2011 10% 1.605 - 1.605 63.70 5% 0.737 - 1.605 57.63
6/30/2011 10% 1.618 1.479 1.618 65.18 5% 0.732 1.48 1.618 58.22
9/30/2011 10% 1.618 5.992 1.618 71.17 5% 0.723 5.992 1.618 63.32
12/13/2011 10% 1.655 0.146 1.655 71.32 5% 0.736 0.15 1.655 62.55
3/31/2012 10% 1.808 0.019 1.808 71.34 5% 0.793 0.019 1.808 61.55
6/30/2012 10% 1.808 - 1.808 71.34 5% 0.780 - 1.808 60.52
9/30/2012 10% 1.808 - 1.808 71.34 5% 0.767 - 1.808 59.48
12/31/2012 10% 1.808 - 1.808 71.34 5% 0.754 - 1.808 58.43
3/31/2013 Sweep 5.826 - 5.826 71.34 5% 0.730 - 5.826 53.33
6/30/2013 na 6.971 - 6.971 71.34 5% 0.667 - 6.971 47.03
9/30/2013 na 4.357 - 4.357 71.34 5% 0.588 - 4.357 43.26
12/31/2013 na 30.436 - 30.436 71.34 5% 0.541 - 30.436 13.36
3/31/2014 na 10.435 - 10.435 71.34 5% 0.167 - 10.435 3.10
6/30/2014 na 4.499 - 4.499 71.34 5% 0.039 - 4.499 (1.36)
9/30/2014 na 1.890 - 1.890 71.34 5% (0.017) - 1.890 (3.27)
12/31/2014 na 2.786 - 2.786 71.34 5% (0.041) - 2.786 (6.10)
3/31/2015 na 0.851 - 0.851 71.34 5% (0.076) - 0.851 (7.02)
6/30/2015 na 0.746 - 0.746 71.34 5% (0.088) - 0.746 (7.86)
9/30/2015 na 3.913 - 3.913 71.34 5% (0.098) - 3.913 (11.87)
12/31/2015 na - - - 71.34 5% (0.148) - - (12.02)
3/31/2016 na 1.740 - 1.740 71.34 5% (0.150) - 1.740 (13.91)
6/30/2016 na - - - 71.34 5% (0.174) - - (14.08)
9/30/2016 na 0.933 - 0.933 71.34 5% (0.176) - 0.933 (15.19)
12/31/2016 na 2.310 - 2.310 71.34 5% (0.190) - 2.310 (17.69)
Totals Totals 101.443 71.336 101.443 Totals Totals 12.416 71.336 101.443 Totals
If you can put this in a spread sheet you'll see the power of compounding!
At 5% - they'd owe Freddie $18Billion!
Fannie is done and recalculated the same way. It results in a higher amount owed.
If they do this you can forget that 30 year amort thing.
Next to your question of what happens. Well that's not up to me; but i couldn't imagine they'd not be free. Also, keep in mind the tax benefit of re-characterizing this as interest payments. Freddie would have to show the expense and the tax benefit of the interest expense.
This would be great.
JM
Enjoy.
okay.
Just trying to keep it real.
Your enthusiasm is to be applauded.
thank you for your vigilance and courage.
JM
198 PE ratio is absurd. Like reko and his $1000 share price.
a normalized pe of around 12 for a financial stock is not unrealistic.
I too believe we've been wrong and believe the government has stolen from the shareholders. That there should be awarded damages. But, i don't believe them to be excessive or punitive will be awarded. I could see a settlement of and into a shareholder class based upon length of ownership at the rate of around $2 a year maybe $3. So that if you've held for 8 years you'd be awarded $16 or so per share or fractional period thereof. This would be akin to replacing the dividends; but I'd not believe it to be extreme.
The problem here is there is a lot of $$ at stake. With nearly 2billion shares outstanding; any settlement of $20 a share will cost the government $40Billion and its not going to want to do that.
Its bad enough knowing they potentially owe fannie and freddie $40Billion based on Cap's Bill 491.
Cap's House bill 491 that was proposed - redefines the arrangement as a lending arrangement as opposed to what has been called an "investment".
This is the subject of the discussion. That if the payments and draws were that of a loan and interest payments as opposed to how is being treated (currently).
A simple interest loan recalculation - of which I did over 1,000 for the FHLB would result in the government owing fannie and freddie a few billion each.
Its just math.
Obie,
I'll try and put a schedule together; but the basic premise is reducing the 10% load to 5% is a 50% reduction in cost. This allows the amounts paid earlier at 10% to cover interest and amortize or curtail the loan. Thus every subsequent payment covers more principal reduction and brings the loan value down.
Obviously, there are some timing issues with an estimate like this but its probably not unreasonable.
My work doesn't even contemplate the fact the borrowings were contrived by the felonious method that FHFA and Treasury cooked the books.
Since all the money was repaid. The money stuffed at FandF when then didn't need it that was repaid, should have drawn no interest. Without studying the 10Q's I wouldn't want to guess, but my sense is nearly all if not all the money should have been without interest or fees because of the government corruption. And if you figure much of the "draws" were circular that would make quite a difference in the outcome.
We'd go to 100 ...
The fun thing is...
If the interest rate were reduced to 5% from 10% and the payments applied to the loans.
Freddie would be owed about 18Billion and Fannie owed about 21Billion.
Now, this doesn't include factoring for offsetting the excess reserves retroactively. I'd expect excluding those and offsetting would probably result in a much larger numbers. Because, neither needed the money.
If you use 3% rates Freddie would be owed just 23B and Fannie 29B.
10,000 shares of common could change most people's lives once fair value arrives.
25,000 shares at fair value, coupled with other investments should be adequate for most to diversify and change their latitudes.
Wishing for the best.
I hear you, but it makes no business sense to continue the nonsense of the lawsuits and the uncertainty that it creates.
A warrant exercise that does not compensate the shareholders is going to face scrutiny and protracted litigation.
If they did a capital raise - the warrants would have to be canceled.
A capital raise would need to be at some reasonable value.
Faith in the process has to be restored.
So, imagine 5.5B for a Q and 22B for a year on 2B shares OS = $10+ per share net of pfd divis. On average at a 12 pe = $120 bucks fair value.
WTF is keeping them from doing the right thing!
This is beyond nonsense.
Yes. Some at 25c
Some at higher prices.
Held pretty same for four years. Did trade out of Freddie for Fannie when price inverted. But, I do own both.
128 / 4 = 32x or 3200%
You were doing exponents.
100% on $4 = $4 return or $8
200% or 2x 4 = 8 = $12
300% or 3x 4 = 12 = 16
400% or 4x 4 = 16 = 20
500% or 5x 4 = 20 = $24 share price.
Oh i hear you on the government greed.
But, the AIG case already said it was bad of them to do what they did. To do it again, could be very costly.
I just see them figuring it out.
There is too much money on the table not to press for fair value for what will is to be taken.
If the government wants this issue resolved any time in the next 10 years they won't steal more.
Chess - I really agree with you. Its a non issue for the people voting to confirm and just noise for the media.
Mnuchin did good talking in general terms his goals and such.
Lets hope they do the right thing.
To be honest, I just don't see a case for the warrants to be used.
The Government wants to resolve this mess.
If they take the warrants; yet recap and release or whatever it is going to give people like me - but with 1,000,000 shares a lot of reason to sue the government. For taking 80% of the value of their shares without compensation.
If it were me and I had 1,000,000 shares and had 25M dollars, I darn sure would sue for the other 100M they took from me.
Whereas, if they don't the govnerment still nets a lot in income taxes and spurred on economy. Its really a no brainer.
I hope we get to $25 like you wrote... but if we do I think it goes much higher.
Peace.
500% only gets you to $24. $24-4 = 20 / 4 = 5 or 500%
It should be closer to 3,000% return
Pretty stupid of media to think making people pay a fair price for a service from a private company is raising taxes? Wonder if they'd say the same thing of Starbucks raising their prices?
Figure that math he's already done in his head. Several times.
When you have a public sector employee making as much or even more than a private sector employee... it is ridiculous.
Yes, especially, since in many or most cases there is less risk being employed in the "government sector" less risk of job loss. Less risk of job loss and higher pay creates disequilibrium whereas in the private sector risk takers should be rewarded with higher wages when they work to make up for the in between times when they don't its part of the "risk" taken for a start up or de novo.
Risk free (or less employment) should come with lower pay. Its a problem when they do not.
Pricing risk appropriately will induce private interests into the marketplace and encourage competition.
The "hike" net of the interest deduction for most is really only $300 and spreads and funds the potential losses across all the borrowers. Its "socialism" at work and the democrats should love it.
One of the big problems that brought on Alt A loans was lending that didn't mesh risk and benefit. It also failed to have borrowers with skin in the game - so they bought homes they could afford rather than their "dream" home.
Sure, not everyone but some.
Yep.
He also didn't say some draconian move like giving the business to the banks.
What he did say is loans for the middle class.
Reform can be done through positive regulatory reform which has occurred.
Next
Today's reaction was well over blown.
I continue to believe that a compromise will occur.
Its not going to be more government win at the expense of the taxpayer.
Mnuchin,
Its very important to watch and listen to what he "doesn't say" as opposed to what he does say.
He was very non-committal on anything other than a solution.
I think we have to remain vigilant and remember the one thing that has to occur is resolution and understand how that occurs. Or becomes possible.
Me too!
Everyday going to work. Hoping. Just thinking.
Will today be the day!
When will it happen.
Doing the math y shares x price = $
and new Zip code!
Sure hope like heck Tim H and Pat and everyone else is spot on $250 would be over $,$$$,$$$!
Would be nice but I'd be happy with $125.
$250 is better though.
Fingers x'd for the right thing to occur!
There are all sorts of value propositions here based upon what route the government decides. If they opt to change course and play fair and by the rules; the value proposition explodes. If they want to resolve the issues they've created and now about to inherit; by reaching an affirmative settlement they could.
I would sincerely hope that they compromise here and reach a mutually beneficial resolution that absolves the pending matters and the cases to be filed. Keeping in mind that the statue of limitations is somewhat tolled by the conservatorship and of course by the withholding of material information as to the actions of the government. Meaning, they can't just withhold information for 7 or 8 years and then say, see statute has run too bad. The release of new material non public information will start it all over again as now the matter is available to be seen. Plus, once the conservatorship ends, and it will end, the rights of the shareholders will return and the statute will begin to run. The acts thereof will then they will be accountable.
So, what is the strategy? What is the exit plan? I contend it has to be settlement that compensates for the actions.
What does this look like? Not sure, but the easiest is some recap plan that includes a release; raising of funds and cash settlement to share holders for time value lost. There ultimately, has to be some resolution and only equitable why in our society to do that is cash money or a coupon (okay seriously) just cash money for lost bargain based upon time holding the stock, like a big class action of around $2 per year or proportional period during conservatorship. So, if you've held share for 3.5 years you get $7 a share if you've held for all 8 you get $16. They'll also have to figure something for the preferreds similarly.
What common share value is possible. Perhaps as high as $125. But, likely, more than $50.
Folks Fannie and Freddie are operating entities and there is no reason to believe they can't be for the future.
So, lets get this.. straight.
Mnuchin reports a net worth of around $620 Million.
Less than Buffett and more than me. Not chump change and likely to be honest doubling or tripling would not otherwise materially alter his life or his needs. It would be hard to spend $620 Million and run out of money in the ordinary course of business; for a smart guy like him.
So, of this 620M a fund he may have as much as $2M or 1/300th about .33% of his Net worth; that who nows maybe has $1Billion so his interest is at most around 1/500th has who know not more than 100M shares... so maybe net net around .01% of his net worth in Fannie and Freddie.... or maybe $600K. But you know this is extreme because Mnuchin only has around $2M.
Now, to be honest, is that significant to him... no would it ruin his day to lose it... no... And if it doubled? or tripled? or quadrupled to $2.4-3.2M it would still be less than .4% of his net worth.
So, while sensational this WSJ revelation may be... its really not worth headline postings as its insignificant in the grand scheme of things; really a non event.
I'd expect him to do the right thing regardless of this potential conflict but really, its not anything close to losing 30,000 emails.
Go Fannie Mae
Are you nuts. I don't have time to waste. Had to take out the trash at my house, too.
Hoping the new admin changes the tone at the WH / Treas / FHFA etc.
It was quite noticeable the recent flurry of fhfa activity imploring the courts to RULE and reject plaintiff arguments that are mere days away from being ... well walked backwards.
I'd imagine there will be quite a few "experienced" but worthless attorneys looking for new jobs soon. If, employable, that is.