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.
How the Senate Banking Fight Over Reg Relief Will Play Out
BY VICTORIA FINKLE
MAY 12, 2015 5:47PM ET
Share Comments A A A Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., said Tuesday that she's still reviewing the legislation, though she noted in a statement that it was drafted "without any input" from Democrats. Votes from moderates like her will be key. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., said Tuesday that she's still reviewing the legislation, though she noted in a statement that it was drafted "without any input" from Democrats. Votes from moderates like her will be key.
WASHINGTON — The ball is now firmly in Democrats' court, following the release of the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby's sweeping regulatory reform bill.
The Alabama Republican unveiled his discussion draft Tuesday, which is focused on regulatory relief for community and regional banks, along with changes to the Federal Reserve, the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the mortgage finance industry.
But the biggest test for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will come May 21, when the bill is scheduled for a committee vote.
Below are three ways the markup could shake out, and a look at what each means to the overall prospects for a bill:
Option 1: Shelby and Brown strike a deal.
Perhaps the best-case scenario for the banking industry would be for Shelby and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, ranking member on the panel, to put aside their differences and come to the table on a compromise bill that could sail through the House and be signed by President Obama.
Republican committee aides have emphasized that the legislation is intended as a starting point for subsequent discussion and that they drafted the current proposal with an eye toward bringing on Democratic support. The American Bankers Association and the Independent Community Bankers of America offered support for the bill on Tuesday, reiterating that smaller institutions are anxious for regulatory relief.
But the prospects for a "kumbaya" moment have become increasingly unlikely in recent weeks as representatives from both camps aired grievances about the other's approach to negotiations, which appear not to have gotten off the ground. Democratic aides on the panel told reporters Tuesday that Brown is open to community bank regulatory relief, but the breadth of the current legislation continues to be a non-starter.
"Rather than focusing on issues that enjoy broad bipartisan support, this draft bill is a sprawling industry wish list of Dodd-Frank rollbacks," Brown said in a statement Tuesday, after the package was formally unveiled.
Of course, all tough negotiations require some hardball, and Brown has not said that he's walking away from the discussions entirely.
"When I was up there, we never reached a deal with Dodd and Sarbanes until everybody was yelling and screaming," said Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute, and a former Shelby staffer.
He added that the process often involves both sides pushing for their own positions as hard as they can — up until the breaking point.
"If they thought they could squeeze an inch out of us, they'd do it. Until they asked for too much, they'd keep asking," Calabria said.
But it's worth noting at this point that there's little indication from either side that a breakthrough is at hand or that substantive discussions are in play, making the chances for a bipartisan package supported by top party leaders very slim.
Option 2: Shelby wins over a few moderate Democrats.
Even without the support of their ranking member, it's possible some moderate Democrats on the panel could opt to work out a deal with Shelby to bolster their contacts with industry and secure a key win for community banks.
Observers are keeping a careful eye on Sens. Mark Warner of Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana.
"To me, it's a question of whether it's 12-10 or 15-7. After seeing this release, the high water mark for a committee vote will be 16," said Isaac Boltansky, an analyst at Compass Point Research & Trading. "The headlines will be about Shelby and Brown, but in reality the fate of the bill in the Senate is going to fall in the hands of moderate Democrats."
Bringing on even a few moderates could prove crucial for Shelby to move his bill through the Senate via regular order. It closes the gap needed for a filibuster-proof vote and could provide cover for more Democrats to join the effort on the chamber floor.
"One thing I'll be interested to see is, who is willing to engage in a dialogue versus who shuts the door?" said David Stevens, president and chief executive of the Mortgage Bankers Association, noting that he's supportive of several housing provisions in the bill and would like to see a bipartisan dialogue emerge.
He added: "There are some areas we clearly support, but there's a lot in the bill, and we recognize there are other areas unrelated to those we focus on that would likely cause concern for others. But it'd be a shame to throw out the baby with the bathwater."
Still, early responses from committee Democrats suggest that even the more centrist members of the panel aren't unconditionally ready to sit down at the table with Shelby.
Heitkamp, for example, said in a statement Tuesday afternoon that the bill "was drafted without any input" from Democrats and noted that she's "still reviewing" the legislation.
"I hope we can actually work together to negotiate strong, bipartisan policies that best support community banks and credit unions," she said.
A spokeswoman for Warner said that that the legislation appeared "at first glance to be a significant overreach."
"Senator Warner thinks that is a shame, because there are a number of commonsense, bipartisan fixes that Democrats and Republicans alike want to enact," she added.
Tester offered a similarly guarded analysis in his own statement Tuesday afternoon.
"Today is the first time the Chairman has shared the bill text with me. Politics aside, I will look at the policy and see if it works, but this process has been disappointing thus far," he said.
Option 3: The committee vote proceeds along party lines.
While there's still time for a deal to be struck, analysts said there's a decent chance the legislation ultimately passes the committee by a party-line vote.
"Unless there are some meaningful changes, the sheer breadth of it gives political cover for Democrats to stick together," said Edward Mills, a policy analyst at FBR Capital Markets. "What you'll probably get out of the markup next week is a lot of qualified no-votes on the Democratic side."
That would make winning a floor vote on the bill much harder. But Shelby does have an ace up his sleeve—the ability to use the appropriations process if necessary to pass certain provisions. Such a maneuver would spark a partisan clash later this year, but Shelby could make it work, potentially adding measures to a must-pass spending bill. The threat of such a move could force at least some Democrats to deal.
Additionally, Mills noted that Democrats will face increasing pressure to offer specific proposals of their own, particularly when it comes to helping community banks. Even if Democrats stand united against the Shelby bill, observers will be watching to see if lawmakers offer any amendments or a substitute bill as part of the process.
"There can be some criticism for having the breadth that the bill does, but as I look at it, really the onus is going to be on Senate Democrats to have a counteroffer," he said. "That's where Shelby is trying to force the issue."
http://www.americanbanker.com/news/law-regulation/how-the-senate-banking-fight-over-reg-relief-will-play-out-1074309-1.html
Just copying someone's tweet here, hope they don't mind, good stuff!
May 12Bryndon Fisher
And here's what I said:
Dear Mr. Carney:
Bill Maloni was kind enough to include me in this email exchange, for which I am grateful. I very much appreciate your perspective on our Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac quagmire, and since I have some interest in, and experience with the topic, I am hoping that you may be amenable to hear my perspective as well. I am a shareholder in both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as a lead plaintiff in two of the many cases pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
When I purchased common and preferred shares in these two companies, beginning in March 2009, I did so with the full and complete understanding that, if economic conditions allowed, their conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), would see to ferrying these two entities to financial safety. How did I know this? Because the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) mandated it, and the FHFA was thoughtful enough in September 2008 to promulgate a fact sheet, summarizing its responsibilities and goals as conservator under this new law:
“The purpose of appointing the Conservator is to preserve and conserve [Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s] assets and property and to put the [two companies] in a sound and solvent condition.” Moreover, the FHFA is “to keep the [two companies] in a safe and solvent financial condition.” And, “upon the [FHFA] Director’s determination that the Conservator’s plan to restore [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] to a safe and solvent condition has been completed successfully, the Director will issue an order terminating the conservatorship.” (obtained from the FHFA Fact Sheet, attached)
I, along with many others, relied on these covenants when I entered into my ownership interest with the GSEs. By the same token, I also recognized the primary risk involved in holding shares of these two companies. If the economy didn’t recover quickly enough or substantially enough, the conservator would have no choice but to recommend receivership for either or both firms, and thereby begin the formal liquidation process.
Yet, I remained confident in my investment because the United States economy is a powerful machine – second to none – and the services that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide to a growing housing market are essential and valuable. And guess what? My investment thesis was vindicated. The economy did recover, and beginning in 2012 my companies turned the corner to begin their final journey through conservatorship by repaying the U.S. Treasury (or the American taxpayer, if you wish) and rebuilding their capital structures.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Treasury and the FHFA had a different agenda, one comprising ideas and actions that were not authorized under HERA, or any other American law. As you may have come to realize, the FHFA forgot that it was the conservator for the companies, and decided in August 2012 to begin surrendering to the U.S. Treasury all future profits (assets, really) of these two enterprises. And they did this through an amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement (SPSPA). This action essentially imprisoned the two GSEs in perpetual conservatorship.
So, where are we now after almost three years since this inauspicious act? Arguing over whether my fellow shareholders and I deserve to have our companies returned to us as prescribed by law, and have them returned before, dare I say it, Congress has reformed them. Setting aside the legal arguments for a moment, let’s discuss reform.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our nation’s most prominent government-sponsored enterprises, were already reformed by Congress through the enactment of HERA. This law not only provided a more robust regulator, the FHFA, but the law gave the GSEs more specificity when it came to capital standards. Today, as was the case when HERA was enacted, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been reformed. But what about the government guarantee? As one would assume, it applies to every major systemically-important American company in case of catastrophic economic collapse. But, proper capital requirements and effective regulatory oversight can reduce the frequency of this tumultuous intervention, considerably.
And with regards to the duopoly argument, the FHFA’s regulatory mandate has the ability to create a public utility-like environment for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that will protect taxpayers and investors alike, all the while delivering cost effective mortgage rates and safe investment instruments.
So, do I deserve to reap the benefits of this extraordinary financial rescue through my ownership of common and preferred shares in these two rehabilitated GSEs? You bet I do, for the same exact reasons why I reaped great rewards from my post-bailout investments in Citigroup, AIG, Bank of America, and General Electric. I purchased the stock certificates, and I took the risk that the economy may not recover quickly enough or substantially enough for those firms to survive. But guess what? They did. And guess what else? I was able to retire a few years ago due, in part, to these great investments. I did what every other red-blooded, American investor has done since before America became a country. I capitalized on an opportunity, an opportunity born from economic turmoil and backed by the law of the land, for my benefit.
But this perspective wouldn’t be complete unless I advocated for the obvious. It is time for the most important and powerful person within this whole drama to finally come forward, and do the right thing. Of course I’m talking about Mr. Mel Watt, the Director of the FHFA. As conservator for the two entities with a well-inked pen, and the power of HERA behind him, he can unilaterally 1) strike down the third amendment to the SPSPA as contrary to the FHFA’s mandate to put the entities in a sound and solvent condition, 2) declare the U.S. Treasury and the American taxpayer repaid with the March 2014 “dividend” payment and, thus, the senior preferred stock fully redeemed, 3) extinguish the warrants issued to the U.S. Treasury as unnecessary for repayment, 4) permit the GSEs to relist their securities on the NYSE, 5) allow the entities to recapitalize through a prudent mix of debt, equity, earnings, and overpayments made to the U.S. Treasury since March 2014, and 6) release the entities from conservatorship, and back, not to the American people, but to this American shareholder and his fellow owners – the ones who hold the stock certificates.
I do so hope you will consider what I have written here. Although we may not agree on all aspects, I do value your opinion and insight very much. And the next time Mr. Lew or Mr. Watt tells Congress that they need to pass a law to solve the problem of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you can tell them through The Wall Street Journal that Congress did pass a law, and guess what, they’re not following it.
Sincerely,
Bryndon D. Fisher
I haven't received a response from him, but maybe his next article will be a bit more comprehensive on the issue.
Attachments (1)
ConservatorshipFactSheet.pdf
44 KB View Download
Fannie, Freddie, and the #RuleofLaw:https://t.co/ElHzGBYGdE#Fanniegate#Deceivership
— Andrew Tomlinson (@SleipnirPerkins) May 13, 2015
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Jon Bon Jovi kicked off the program. The big number started to add up with the announcement of a $25 million anonymous gift to start a fund for education and technology projects. Soon came another $25 million pledge from Bill and Karen Ackman’s Pershing Square Foundation to match donations.
“The people in the room were really receptive when they heard about Karen and Bill’s generosity,” David Saltzman, executive director of the foundation, said Wednesday in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “What’s great is tens of thousands of people are part of the Robin Hood community. Some people give a dollar. Some people get to give a million dollars.”
Your welcome! Glad to see the pressure is on! Response Monday should be interesting.
Yes, strong message to government to once again stop the shenanigans, to remind the arrogant ones in gov that the public has a right to know this information. This motion with exhibits is over 100 pages, pretty interesting. Someone should send it to Grassley's office. :)
3. Finally, the parties “are not the only people who have a legitimate interest in the record compiled in a legal proceeding.” Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944 (7th Cir. 1999). In reviewing the Government’s designation of its March 20 Log as protected, the Court must balance the Government’s interest in secrecy and the pub- lic’s right to know. In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 99 F.R.D. 645, 649 (E.D.N.Y. 1983). The parties are entitled under the Constitution to disseminate any information that they obtain during discovery to the full extent permitted by a valid protective order. Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854, 858 (7th Cir. 1994).10 Moreover, “[a]s a general proposition, pretrial discovery must take place in ... public unless compelling reasons exist for denying the public access to the proceedings.” American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, 596 (7th Cir. 1978). The public has an interest even in pretrial proceedings, moreover, “when the govern- ment seeks to prohibit disclosure of material ... because disclosure of material which in private litigation might be protected may be ‘proper and even constructive in order to disseminate politi- cal information.’” In re Agent Orange, 99 F.R.D. at 649 (quoting Case Comment, The First Amendment Right to Disseminate Discovery Materials: In re Halkin, 92 HARV. L. REV. 1550, 1558 (1979)). Especially in a case, such as this one, that concerns not only important constitutional questions but also challenges to governmental decisions that have critical public policy implica- tions, it is not at all surprising that the public would take an interest in the Government’s efforts to invoke various privileges to shield thousands of relevant documents from scrutiny. But while the Government may not like that fact, it cannot simply resort, without any basis under the Pro- tective Order, to an attempt to cast a shroud of secrecy over even those routine materials, like privilege logs, that document its numerous assertions of privilege.
Even without this fundamental and irreconcilable disconnect between the Government’s treatment of the March 20 Log and its very different treatment of its previous logs, the Govern- ment’s effort to shroud the March 20 Log in secrecy would be unprecedented. In fact, Plaintiffs are aware of no reported decision holding, over another party’s objection, that a run-of-the-mill privilege log like the March 20 Log should be treated as a protected document. When one adds in the fact that the log that the Government seeks to treat as confidential is essentially indistin- guishable from the multiple unprotected logs that the Government had previously produced, the unprecedented and inappropriate nature of the Government’s actions is obvious. The courts have already criticized litigants’ increasing tendency to over-designate discovery materials as confi- dential.1 The Government has now taken that practice to new, and disturbing, heights. For these reasons, as more fully explained below, the Court should enter an order requir- ing the Government to remove the Protected Information designation from the March 20 Log. In addition, because the Government is continuing to produce privilege logs on a rolling basis, thus raising the likelihood that similar disputes will arise in the future, the Court should direct the Government that it should not designate future privilege logs as protected unless they contain in- formation that meets the definition of Protected Information, in which case the Government should also produce a redacted version of the privilege log.2
PLAINTIFFS’ PUBLIC, REDACTED MOTION TO REMOVE THE “PROTECTED INFORMATION” DESIGNATION FROM DEFENDANT’S MARCH 20 PRIVILEGE LOG Plaintiffs Fairholme Funds, Inc., et al. (“Plaintiffs” or “Fairholme”) respectfully move, pursuant to Paragraphs 17 and 19 of the Protective Order (“P.O.”) entered in this action (Doc. 73), for entry of an order requiring the Government to remove the “Protected Information” desig- nation it has affixed to its fourth privilege log, which was produced to Plaintiffs on March 20, 2015 (the “March 20 Log”). Because the March 20 Log contains no information that meets the Protective Order’s definition of Protected Information, the Government’s designation of the log as protected was inappropriate. In seeking this relief, Plaintiffs ask that this Court treat the Government’s March 20 Log in the same way that the Government itself treated the first three privilege logs that it served in this case. The Government did not designate its first three privilege logs for protection. Nor could it have done so; those logs contained no proprietary, confidential, trade secret, or market- sensitive information. Although the March 20 Log is no different, the Government nevertheless chose to designate it as Protected Information. Notably, the Government has not even attempted to explain why the March 20 Log qualifies as Protected Information; nor has it attempted to ex- plain how that log differs from its earlier, unprotected, logs. As far as Plaintiffs can tell from their own comparison of the logs, the March 20 Log appears to differ from the first three logs only in that the Government has now elected, on its own initiative, to include the government email addresses of the senders and recipients of several catalogued documents. The unrequested addition of such email addresses does not suffice to render the March 20 Log as Protected Infor- mation, but even if it did, those email addresses could easily be redacted from the log.
Good stuff, thank you, Hvpatel!
That won't work. He was a lawyer and congressman. He has lifetime benefits via the taxpayer. He can't play the dumb, naive role. He'll either stand up or be sued.
Then he'll continue to be sued. He's not doing what we want, but he's not a newbie. He was a lawyer and a congressman, and he was awfully nervous at the last hearings.
What about Watt? F & F are preserved and conserved, what are fhfa's intentions now?
Just like DeMarco swept in before and delisted, why can't Watt sweep in and relist?
According to this article....DeMarco's main stated reason for delisting was that the stock was hovering around $1.
"FHFA’s determination to direct each company to delist does not constitute any reflection on either Enterprise’s current performance or future direction, nor does delisting imply any other findings or determination on the part of FHFA as regulator or conservator," said FHFA Acting Director Edward J. DeMarco.Washington, D.C. – The Federal Housing Finance Agency has directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises), operating in conservatorship, to delist their common and preferred stock from the New York Stock Exchange and any other national securities exchange. Once the delisting is completed, each Enterprise’s common and preferred stock is expected to be quoted on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board. "The determination to direct delisting is related to stock exchange requirements for maintaining price levels and curing deficiencies," DeMarco said.
Each Enterprise’s common stock price has hovered near the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) minimum average closing price requirement of $1 over thirty trading days for most months since the conservatorships were established in September 2008. Most recently, Fannie Mae’s closing stock price has been below the required $1 average price for the past thirty trading days. Per NYSE rules, a company in that condition must either drop from the exchange or undertake a ‘cure’ to restore the stock price above the $1 mark if it does not meet the NYSE’s minimum price requirements. The alternatives for putting in place such a cure do not assure maintaining the minimum price level or avoiding loss of shareholder value.
In view of Freddie Mac’s share price being close to the $1 mark and the common situation of both companies operating in conservatorship with support from the Treasury Department through the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements, FHFA has determined that Freddie Mac should also initiate an orderly delisting process.
"A voluntary delisting at this time simply makes sense and fits with the goal of a conservatorship to preserve and conserve assets," said DeMarco.
Making an effort to re/up list is a "normal board function." I'd like to see proof that the Board has been looking into it.
While FHFA has broad authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the focus of the conservatorships is not to manage every aspect of their operations. Instead, FHFA leadership reconstituted Fannie Mae and Freddie Macs' boards of directors in 2008 and charged them with ensuring that normal corporate governance practices and procedures are in place. The boards are responsible for carrying out normal board functions, which are subject to FHFA review and approval on critical matters. This division of duties represents the most efficient structure for FHFA to carry out its responsibilities as conservator.
Shelby Misses Mark As Fed “Dodges Bullets”
Some proposed Fed reforms address "the criminal problem," but might not go far enough
Posted By: Mark MelinPosted date: May 12, 2015 12:07:34 PMIn: BusinessNo Comments
The U.S. Federal Reserve, and in particular the New York Fed, have apparently dodged significant bullets in draft legislation being offered to Congress that notably does not significantly tighten oversight on an agency that has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans alike.
Richard Shelby Fed
WSJ: Fed Dodges Bulletts in Shelby Reform Proposal
The powerful Senate Banking Chairman, Richard Shelby (R-AL), is set to unveil what is being called wide-ranging regulation that attempts to reign in the Fed’s regulatory apparatus, which was documented to have overlooked its regulatory mandate when supervising the big banks, critics have charged. The legislation, which is required to go through Shelby’s committee, is also aimed to adjusting numerous regulations designed for risk-taking big banks and their complex derivatives positions and easing such restrictions for small- and medium-size banks, Victoria McGrane and Ryan Tracy exclusively report in The Wall Street Journal today.
The legislation is being described by some journalists as easy treatment of the Fed. A Wall Street Journal post from Jon Hilsenrath, headlined with “Fed Dodges Bulletts in Shelby Reform Proposal,” notes the bill does not include sought after provisions for transparency into Fed decision making processes nor an “Audit the Fed” proposal where the Government Accountability Office would review the Fed in similar fashion to other government agencies. The bill is also reported not to include a mandate to follow mathematical decision making processes, instead leaving Fed economic action to be determined on a discretionary basis by their Board of Governors.
New York Fed appears safe in Shelby bill
An issue not mentioned in media reports and absent from the Shelby proposal is to formally remove big bank regulatory authority out of the New York Federal Reserve bank. Significant behind the scenes discussions have taken place regarding independence of the Fed relative to the whims of the big banks. This is particularly the case with the New York Fed, as a picture of regulatory sub servitude is painted against a backdrop where big bank criminal behavior is all around in market manipulation, mortgage fraud and tax evasion. The new bill provides banks a “safe harbor” from avoiding compliance with federal mortgage underwriting standards as well as providing additional guidance regarding how organizations should be labeled as “systemically important.”
The Fed even had several internal scandals where confidential market moving information was leaked to a private firm with a financial interest. While these issues have galvanized discontent on both the right and left of the political spectrum — and even some younger staff inside the New York Fed are documented to have advocated a tougher regulatory approach — Shelby’s proposed legislation today, described as “the most ambitious attempt to revamp the financial regulatory regime since the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act,” is likely to disappoint law and order regulatory critics on both sides of the political spectrum.
Appointment of powerful New York Fed president to change, but holds on to regulatory duties
The proposed legislation requires the powerful New York Fed president to be nominated by the U.S. president and confirmed by the Senate. In recent Congressional testimony New York Fed President William Dudley was even unclear as to how he was appointed. The proposal also allows incoming Fed governors the ability to hire their own staff. Unlike all other government regulatory structures, Fed governors were required to maintain the long-term, most often big bank-friendly staff, many of whom were appointed during Larry Summers era at the U.S. Treasury and when Alan Greenspan was Federal Reserve Chairman. This issue was seen as a roadblock to any reformist Fed governor who might desire to institute a more traditional regulatory structure, and Shelby’s reform efforts in this regard are viewed in a positive light.
There have been attempts to satisfy regulatory critics who now point to documented criminality that previously was only discussed in whispers. The New York Fed Executive Vice President Sarah Dahlgren, in charge of regulatory issues, announced she was resigning at the end of the year and change is underway to centralize regulatory control in Washington D.C. as opposed to New York, as reported in ValueWalk. With Fed Chair Janet Yellen at the helm, recent moves by the central bank to hold bankers accountable for criminal acts are part of an internal battle being fought to reign in the most damaging behavior. Sources have indicated, however, the problem at the New York Fed goes higher than Dahlgren and Shelby’s bill, while addressing some of the obvious issues, appears not to touch certain key control problems.
Ten Democrats on the committee signed a letter objecting to the process Shelby was using to push the bill through the committee. Democrats led by Sherrod Brown (D-OH) are reported to advocate for additional regulatory relief for community banks. The initial draft of the bill is scheduled to be released this afternoon.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/05/shelby-fed-bill/
@DianaOlick: Mortgage credit availability increased slightly in April, due to new FHA home improvement, VA and jumbo product offerings. @MBAMortgage
background info on subpoenas
http://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/subpoenas.pdf
:) The requested 7-day enlargement will provide counsel and the appropriate agency personnel with the necessary time to coordinate the contents of our response and obtain internal review.
05/11/2015 ORDER granting 150 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Response due by 5/18/15. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (ta) Copy to parties.
Closing arguments were April 22nd. Is May 22nd a month later, "relatively soon?". Holiday weekend, that would be our luck, after hours Friday! :)
Good idea!
This one must be the latest joke on us from UST.
"Better data, Better decisions, Better government
By: David Mader and David Lebryk 5/8/2015
A year ago, Congress passed the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, or the DATA Act. Since then, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) have engaged with the communities that create and use this data and taken important first steps towards creating a more data driven government, and making federal data more transparent and available to the American people. Today marks the beginning of the next phase of implementation of the DATA Act."
Oh, I agree. I'd be in the crowd with my stop the sweep US Treasury, stop the theft, hat and t-shirt. :)
I think there are a few Dallas residents on the Board. It looks like Lew will be visiting your area Wednesday.
Wednesday, May 13
1:45 PM CDT
Secretary Jacob J. Lew
Tour of Innovative Machine and Laser Company
3131 Winnequah Street
Dallas, Texas
There will be a b-roll opportunity of the Secretary’s tour for TV cameras and still photographers. Media planning to attend must RSVP to Charles Nwaogu at Charles.Nwaogu2@treasury.gov by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 13. Press call times and additional details are forthcoming.
3:00 PM CDT
Secretary Jacob J. Lew
Moderated Conversation hosted by Dallas Regional Chamber
Dallas Regional Chamber
500 North Akard Street
Suite 2600
Dallas, Texas
This event is open press. For additional information, please contact Amy Ramos at aramos@dallaschamber.org.
"We EXPECT to pay Treasury ANOTHER $1.8 billion in dividends........HOWEVER..., as you know,...our dividend payments do not reduce the amount of our prior Treasury draws......Federal income tax paid (for 1st quarter) $870 million.
http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/ir/audio/media-call-q12015.mp3
Lol! I was thinking that too, but your response is better. This was mine.
Sweeney should just not grant the extension, even if it is an unopposed motion. They've had plenty of time (once again) to file a response. They're playing games, wasting taxpayers' money. In reading that latest response to Grassley from the attorney general's office, they act like they don't even know about the developments in Sweeney court. They're probably all running around trying to get their stories straight.
Those will be some interesting conversations. Our screenwriter should include that in the movie. Lots of foul language. :)
It will be a well deserved celebration for us all!! So, one more week for gov to do their internal review. :) Pershing Square public Q&A on the 18th also.
Not sure about that 5/26 thrown in? Clerical error? It's not in the doc filed.
DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMOVE THE “PROTECTED INFROMATION” DESIGNATION FROM DEFENDANT’S MARCH 20, 2015 PROVISIONAL PRIVILEGE LOG
Pursuant to Rules 6(b) and 6.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), defendant, the United States, respectfully requests that the Court grant defendant a 7- day enlargement of time, to and including May 18, 2015, to file its response to the motion to remove the “Protected Information” designation from defendant’s March 20, 2015 provisional privilege log filed by plaintiffs, Fairholme Funds, Inc., et al. (Fairholme). The Government’s response is currently due on May 11, 2015. On May 8, 2015, counsel for Fairholme advised counsel for the Government that Fairholme does not oppose the requested enlargement of time.
Fairholme’s motion to remove the “Protected Information” designation requests two forms of relief: (1) an order requiring the Government to produce a version of its March 20, 2015 provisional privilege log without a legend indicating that it constitutes Protected Information pursuant to the Court’s protective order; and (2) an order instructing the Government to provide redacted, non-protected versions of any subsequent privilege logs. As this Court is aware, we agreed to provide Fairholme with provisional privilege logs on a periodic basis. Although the initial, provisional privilege logs provided to Fairholme did not bear the
No. 13-465C
) (Judge Sweeney)
?
legend “Protected Information” permitted by the protective order, implicit in this arrangement was an understanding that our assertions were preliminary and subject to reconsideration pending the preparation of a final privilege log to Fairholme after document production is complete.
After Fairholme published excerpts from the provisional logs in a letter to shareholders, the Government designated subsequent provisional privilege logs as Protected Information to prevent the release of confidential information.
Good cause exists to grant the requested enlargement of time. Given our efforts to (1) complete document production and prepare a final privilege log in accordance with the Court’s discovery deadline and (2) prepare for and participate in the depositions scheduled by Fairholme, an enlargement of time is needed to prepare a meaningful response to Fairholme’s motion. The requested 7-day enlargement will provide counsel and the appropriate agency personnel with the necessary time to coordinate the contents of our response and obtain internal review.
For these reasons, we request that the Court extend the deadline for the Government to respond to Fairholme’s motion by 7 days, to May 18, 2015.
05/08/2015 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time until 5/18/2015 to File Response as to 148 MOTION to Remove the "Protected Information" Designation from Defendant's March 20 Privilege Log , filed by All Defendants.Response due by 5/26/2015.(Laufgraben, Eric)
Is it just me, or is this hard to read through? Embarrassing response by the gov. Let's just get these court cases over with! :)
Ackman's 49th bday is Monday. He (Pershing Square) has over half a billion $$$ invested in commons of Fannie and Freddie. None of us know anything here anyway, so...to help celebrate we should all go have Margaritas or go for hike, etc over the weekend. Report back with your best findings! :)
That would be too logical and responsible. If we could count on the gov to do that every time, the pps would be much higher. Instead we have to squeeze it out of them!
One more business day until defendant's response due! I guess they didn't feel the need to get it in early. :)
Everyone here, absurd_trader? If you have a beef about a certain post or subject, just get to the point, tactfully. It's a message board! :)
It did remind me of that article. More ethics classes needed!
Things seem kind of slow in congress, but here is what is on the agenda for next week! :)
HEARING
Hearing entitled “Legislative Proposals to Enhance Capital Formation and Reduce Regulatory Burdens, Part II”
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:00 PM in HVC-210 Capitol Visitor Center
Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises
Hearing entitled “The Dodd-Frank Act and Regulatory Overreach"
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:30 AM in HVC-210 Capitol Visitor Center
Oversight and Investigations
x