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.
Huh?
Why would howard delay..
Its the guvernment that wants to delay, stall and wane investor interest.
That is why the share price has been falling....
The realizzation that judgment day isn't next week, next month, or maybe even not next year...
The guvernment is excellent at waiting people out and delaying.
There are countless cases invovling the govenrment that take 10 years + to resolve.
By then... many individuals have lost the will to fight or are dead.
So, the greatest tactic is delay , stall , wait, postpone.
It happens all the time and at all levels
just the game they play.
Howard's hiring by plaintiffs is of no great concern to the government. They already know the outcome. They are just trying to delay it; and scope it to their liking. This is all about the delay. Stall tactics.
ya know...
I just want fannie released, warrants shredded and proper accounting to reflect the economic interests of the loan draws net and applicable repayments at reasonable cost.
Give me that...
And
Let the markets decide proper valuation.
At fair value; which is pegged at north of 250; there will be a lot of people pursuing new interests. I for one will be one of those.
But it will not have been lucky. Nothing here is lucky, I will not allow anyone to later tell me how blessed "lucky" I was. No, we've all been thru a bunch; we've chosen to invest our hard earned cash into these entities; much like those that invested in apple or google or gilead. Nope, no luck here.
an o-3 count is a strike out.
you might mean a 3-0 count.
But Balls come before strikes.
Not to be snarky
but if you sold worthless assets to unsuspecting customer in a transaction where you knew the assets were worthless at a price above that... wouldn't that be like committing a "fraud". And if there were perhaps two or more people doing this or allowing this or perpetrating this wouldn't that sort of be a conspiracy to commit fraud. And, just saying if that conspiracy were sort of organized wouldnt' that organized conspiracy to commit fraud be a RICO violation worthy of treble damages? And all sorts of other things?
Now then...
If this organized effort extended to the oppression of the entire entity when in fact the laws state otherwise; in an effort to do or such counter to the laws wouldn't that be a really bad thing, individually, and as a group?
The question is how big is that group and who should be included as to a massive conspiracy to do such harm? Is it so big that it can only be seen from a large vantage point?
Its like digging up a pebble in the back yard. You start by seeing it, uncovering some dirt and revealing a rock. Then that rock as you still can't seem to get it out of the way becomes a "larger rock" and after removing and digging and trying to size up you finally see its actually a boulder and next you go, wow... its now a hill / part of a mountain.
Folks there is a larger brazen scheme to deny us and the public of the benefits of fannie and freddie.
I can't explain it but backing up and taking a bigger view. I see a massive problem of people for some unknown reason conspiring to take our companies.
You know what. As long as this swipe thing is still in effect I hope someone at Fannie or Freddie smart enough to know that fannie and freddie are above the law' that they "manage" net income down to $0.
Yep, #0 net income and $o net loss. So that, even though they'd be well over reserved and flush with cash, that they report no income. So, those at Treasury looking for some easy money are rebuffed.
Sounds sinister doesn't it. You know managing earnings to a number.... just like Treasury did in 2008 to 2010 to create the massive mis information that Fannie and Freddie needed money.
Which they did not.
Two can play their games.
Wow..
You get it!
I concur with you mostly. The warrants - to me they are like pouring salt in a wound - just over the top and egregious in nature to me.
The writer of this article lacks any real understanding of Fannie and Freddie.
Further, why in GGE would you write fees at .4% of the entire 4.5 Trillion. Thats akin to property insurance on the land. Similarly, not all the loans will go "bad" and the ones that do will not be a TOTAL loss.
So, the reinsurance really need be only a sliver of the aggregate balance. And of course for that full FEE; the government must walk away from fannie and freddie, and no longer be allowed to mettle in their affairs.
Oh, you want fannie and freddie to set aside some $$ for "desired programs" and loans and such, oh, gosh... Mr. Government that will cost you a fee. Say a fee of 12-15 Billion a year.
Oh, and don't come running to fannie and freddie to save the economy again Mr. Government if your policies screw up the world again.
See, life is a two way street.
Yep.
So much want this to be restated to fair value.
This thing could double 5-6 times and still be undervalued.
Posted this on another mssg board. But, would like to know what is thought of this thought?
Thoughts??
It dawned on me just now sitting in the library. Can the Government risk a judicial decision in these cases involving Fannie and Freddie?
I firmly believe the government is on the wrong side of the law regarding what they've done. I think there are other scholarly folks that from a legal beagle sense figure the same. So, if and when the courts decide for the plaintiffs then it will be the Judiciary which gets to frame the narrative on the precedent setting series of cases that get handed down. Whereas, if the Government capitulates and gives the plaintiffs what they want mostly in a settlement or series of them, then they get to frame the narrative and avoid the precedent setting case law that comes out of it. If the cases don't go to decisions, then there is no harm for the Government and they are free to plunder in other situations without the overhang of the "Perry Decision" or the "Faireholme Decision, etc" that will form estoppel to prevent future acts.
So, can the Government really risk it? How brazen are they? Or is it time to walk it back and frame their own narrative and "benghazi" like talking points. Where is that Rice Chick when they need her?
14... is a start.
Yeah...
Another great post.
Very true.
Spot on!
Thats what people said about watt initially. I however, disagree. I think castro is another puppet. Just like watt+
Excellent post!
On target and accurate.
Please don't forget or loose sight of the fact that nearly 80% of the money funded fandf that wasn't for interest was for deferred tax asset writeoffs or more. Net that out and the $ has easily been repaid.
These things get to Fair Value... and...
oh my...
I'd actually like them to play the government like games and put up some more excess reserves. Report $1 dollar in net income each and keep all that juice without sending it to the treasury, so that when released we have a few extra billion laying around.
No.
Float not reduced.
You are thinking wrong direction.
90 was with existing share base and prior to consideration of garbage warrants - that should be shredded.
Stop.
GM today is NOT GM of yesterday.
GM of today shed billions of debt to secured debt holders it did not pay as well as much to other unsecured holders.
It went bankrupt and was reorganized under chapter 11 proceedings. It is absolutely NOT the same company. AS for example the stock in the "old" company, the one around for 100 years became worthless and canceled.
New shares were created, sold and issued.
I see the "bill" as a bait and switch.
No good news here other than the headline... keeping FandF.
Should evolve into something good though.
Wow.
This is well said. My feelings exactly. How?
I thought that was 10 billion for both fannie and freddie so... it would be 1.1B fannie shares and what 700 M freddie or 10 bill / near 2bill or only about $5 a share.
I could be wrong tho
Keep in mind that the so called "agreement you referenced" was one entered into by "governement" with "government".
It was never and has never been an agreement entered into between fannie / freddie and government.
You didnt understand my post.
My post is essentially agreeing with your previous post - in that if you replace fannie and freddie ... you do so with fannie and freddie (call it what you want ... Lucy and Ethel (for example) do you rememger the I love Lucy show ... *Lucy and Ethel" Call it Mutt and Jeff... Call it Laurel and Hardy
And you get Fannie and Freddie... except.
by destroying fannie and freddie you destroy trust.
Destroy trust and you get goose eggs.
You know ... Fannie and Freddie could be replaced.
After all everybody and every thing is replaceable.
For example you can choice Pepsi instead of Coke. Pepsi, an inferior product is a replacement, just not as good and not coke.
Or, you could replace Coffee as a morning brew with Tea. Now I like tea, but not in the morning, and not with my bagel. Again, a replacement but inferior.
As to Fannie and Freddie well they could shutter fannie and freddis and replace them with Lucy and Ethel. Ultimately, Lucy and Ethel will look alot like Fannie and Freddie, they will act the same, buy and sell the same and process the same. Problem is, in doing so you'll undermine the integrity of the markets by stealing billions from private investors and undermine the desire of these investors to invest in Lucy and Ethel, for fear that; the gubberment, will do the same thing in 10-15 years or next week as they did with Fannie and Freddie.
See, trust is an important thing in the markets, its why the SEC has an enforcement division, to enforce the rules. Break the rules and break the trust and no body plays the game.
That is the lesson here.
Trust.
so where do we comment on how to bring private money back to the housing market.
Why can't one of the billionaires sue to have FHFA removed as 'conservator' for dereliction of duty as "conservator" ie. to serve and protect. Let the court appoint someone that is not beholding to treasury or the executive branch and ... then be done with conservatorship?
Harry,
Your first post used on me. Great
You seem to be agreeing with me. Thanks. Yes the AIG bailout worked for AIG in keeping them in business and was a negotiated transaction between AIG and the Government.
BUT
The take down of Fannie and Freddie were never negotiated. They were just tackled.
That is the big difference and makes them and the respective terms uncomparable.
I would agree.
This nonsense about interest rates spiking is stupid speak.
Because if fannie and freddie were released - the opposite from what has been discussed and opposite from them needing 2000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 from government (because non of the money they make go to capital) All of which has already been "discussed" and released by tresury. i mean the fhfjahra. Then,... interest rates may stay low... but seriously, the only real direction for interest rates to go is up anyway.
Its actually an idiotic stance. But, just shows they aren't thinking - but stating things hoping people will repeat them enought and believe them.
All for the issues with fhfa... shysters they may be...
but this "agency" was formed and put into place under the prior president. Which does not make me happy.
But. Need to set the recordd straight.
And that hasn't stopped them from giving away the farm - as conservator.
So the law is meaningless, remember it also defince preserve and return as role of conservator and that is ..
Don't always believe what you read just because you read it. Its not always the case. There are laws against stealing... but it happens all the time.
Thought about that too.
The difference is this is a lawsuit. And that would not necessarily be the smartest thing; not sure the weight of the matter but the judge or later a jury could find for plaintiffs even without that information; if its dissaperance leaves a lot to be questioned. Maybe they'd just decide for themselves what info is missing.
Go Fannie and Freddie
Read Obit's narrative of the "book" about what transpired and such as reported by the players.
There were no negotiations, the board were threatened into "going along with it" and there was no one acting on behalf of the company or in the company's interest.
So, they can say now what ever they want.. But it matters then, what happened.
Which is back to my prior posts point...
Fhfa can't be both Pitcher (put them in to conservatorship) and catcher (be the conservator) on the same pitch.
Its a catch-22 situation. That they can't argue their selves out of. Now they can do their best Abbott & Costello...
Keep in mind AIG asked for the bailout and it negotiated its own fate.
Fannie and Freddie.. did not ask for a "bailout" (they didn't need one) and didn't negotiate the terms of the taking.
In the case of Fannie and Freddie the government took them over and gave them the "terms" of the take over. There was no negotiations.
Problem is FHFA can be a "pitcher" or a "catcher" and can be both. BUT it can not be both on the same pitch. That is self dealing and that is wrong if not illegal. In all matters relative to Fannie and Freddie, the taking, the warrant, the 3rd amendment the government was both Pitcher and Catcher (on the same pitch). I think that's a no no.
I guess its going to boil down to this premise.
Can the FHFA act as governement and "non-government" at the same time and in the opposite sides of a transaction.
Essentially,
Lets Say I have a bunch of money and I am engaged or take over custody of someone's trust funds that owns and operates a business (as conservator), somehow. And I enter into a transaction with the trust fund to lend it money at 10x my cost of capital and in exchange take 80% ownership of the trust fund, but never allow the trust fund to repay the money all because I determined in my sole discretion the trust fund needed money without any third party oversight whatsoever. Leaving the trust fund with only a minority interest in itself.
But then i argue... well When I lent the money I was government and when i took the money i was non-government. The government side decided it was a deal and the non government side of me took the deal.
Now, how would that seem as plausible?
I can see it now... bank robber wasn't a bank robber but assumed the role of bank loan officer when money was borrrowed by the bank robber. So, the bank robber really isnt a bank robber but was doing business with his/her non bankrobber self at the same time. So the case was thrown out?
And that is why this mess stinks....
Unlike Tarp people that negotiated deals or accepted or rejected $$ Fannie and Freddie were not given that opportunity. And thus it can't be anything other than self dealing. Had the Government acted in good faith in a fair manner we probably wouldnt be here today; but they got greedy.
I see the FHFA as a "Policeman"...
They see and the public sees them as "always" policeman. Whether they are on duty or not. Meaning. they are always on duty 24 hrs a day 7 days a week all year every year.
For example... if an "off-duty" policeman is involved in an altercation and is shot. The police and press come out of the wood work and exclaim - police officer shot. And if the perp is caught and tried... they are always treated as if they shot "police officer".
Now... I don't want to make too many enemies, but I see that as different. But the public doesn't.
So, either the Fhfa is a public animal or a private animal - never both and never either or. That is really just a stupid argument since they are always the fhfa and always, guided by and acting in their choices and decisions and protected by their role as a Government entity.
Its really just an illogical argument. How can there not be even a "hint" of government - in its decisions. So, when they made the first take over and fhfa negotiated a "deal" with treasury - it was negotiating with itself. And that was wrong.
What is the difference with Tarp takers? Well Tarp takers made the independent decision to voluntarily take tarp ... and abide by what ever "deal" they could get as they negotiated for themselves. This was simply not the case for fannnie and freddie. Therefore, they need to be treated differently. Because you just can't do what they did and take all the benefits for yourself and leave all the liabilities and losses for someone else. Its just not the way its done. That's called self dealing and is routinely frowned upon by the courts, society, and this country.
Its simply fundamentally wrong. And no one can honestly argue against it. So, in this situation, which is specifically different there is no way for the fhfa to be anything other than representing the government's interests at the expense of third parties. The perception is the reality because nothing else is believable.
You are welcome.
There is an enormous tax windfall to the government if they release fannie and freddie and cancel the warrant and return the capital they've stolen.
This would be a total win for the economy and save the governments' face.
win win plus!