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.
this bash doesn't even make sense. you are out of your league brother.....
yep. same way gay marriage played out. the deed is done by the courts and then the dialogue changes politically after the fact. ted olsen was pivotal in that as well...
i think it is a shrewd move. politically, no one wants to be seen as being bullied by hedgies into release. the louder they are, the more pushback. the courts on the other hand let the politicians off the hook. let the law play it out...
Berkowitz sold a measly 6% of his holdings on which he had seen over 100% returns. If he did this to offset losses on other holdings, while still maintaning a large position in both the commons and preferreds of f and f, and was able to get Icahn on board in the process I would argue that he should be named fund manager of the decade. oh, wait.
his litigation continues...
haha. thats what the gov is using right now to redact documents...
keeps getting more interesting. put all my fnma shares in my Ron Popeil's Investomatic, just set it and forget it...
aww fannie. guess we were right about icahn too.......
nice fannie.
recidivism. just a product of the system....
this time last year you would be hard pressed to find an article that even legitimized f and f as an investment. they were called lotto tickets. there was no major public support for either companies. no net zero. trading over $1.00 seemed impossible. so much has changed. elevator still going up.
no, they lose money if they listen to the wrong people
Blackstone in the prefs privately lobbying congress! How did i miss that? One more huge source of private capital that thinks winding down is a bad idea...
sometimes the fnma board reminds me of stephen kings IT. the one where an evil dancing clown suddenly appears and uses peoples fears in twisted and distorted ways to prey on them. so scary!!! i think it is still available on Blue-ray.
i agree. this is such a non issue. he MAY have trimmed by 6.5% of his holdings in march when it was trading at 6. he is still holding a metric f!$k-ton of shares. this is all noise to shake the tree so people dont notice that the bill is going to get squashed by reid.
Wouldn't be totally shocked....
the end of last may was more exciting. we arent there yet ;)
John Grisham's
THE CONSERVATORSHIP
"Sometimes the hardest thing to preserve and conserve is your life"
starring:
Brad Pitt as Dick Hornsby
Wallace Shawn as Edward Demarco
Samuel L Jackson as Melvin Watt
Paul Giamatti as Ben Bernake
and featuring
Vin Deisel as Treasury Sec. Hank Paulson
I want to believe that it is all somehow involved. Some sort of massive coverup that DeMarco was going to frame Hornsby for. I mean what causes someone in that position to allegedly threaten a murder suicide? That is nuts!
I have a flair for the dramatic though. Still a fun diversion.
this hornsby thing is easily the most intriguing subplot of this whole saga.
lets just say this. whatever side you lean to, if you can find an issue that ralph nader, hedge funds, ted olsen, elizabeth warren, the koch brothers backed conservative interest groups, harry reid and etc. AGREE is a bad idea it must be monumentally stupid.
i agree with you. based on the stated intentions of delisting, there is no logical reason not to relist at this point. in hindsight it appears that decisions were being made behind closed doors at the time by some in the goverment to see that shareholders received no value, which is counter to what they publically stated. probably why they removed the pr from the website and refuse to provide documents to the plaintiffs in the lawsuits. technically i believe that they can relist. allowing them to do so would equate to a release though, imo. if that happens i think it is checkmate, whether or not the conservatorship has ended at that point.
edit fannie was below freddie was above. still.
The stocks were only delisted due to price requirements according to the FHFA Press release at the time. Freddie was hovering near the $1 mark when the decision was made and Fannie was above. It was clearly stated that the decision was based only on the price requirements and not the future direction of the companies. The press release was available on the FHFA website until a few months ago when they removed it….hmmm slimy.
Here is a link that shows excerpts from the FHFA press release and the language used at the time.
FHFA FNMA delisting PR
richard perry is a major dem supporter and friend of the clintons. i would guess that the dems will use this to their advantage as they prime hillary for the next pres. election cycle
they will toss him right under the bus before this is all said and done.
they made a profit, millions of americans taxpayers were given continued access mortgage credit, millions of taxpayers were able to refinance to avoid foreclosures, the economy was stabilized, what do you mean they got nothing? yes, there is still risk in another downturn, which will be reduced the gov would stop siphoning profits and the companies are allowed to recapilatize. whats the problem with that?
was in a meeting, not up to speed. assuming we werent shut down though :)
its not watts fault he didnt speak until now. i think the former coo probably told him that he would kill him if he told anyone he had touched his fannie.
Started from the bottom now we here, started from the bottom now Bill Ackman up in here......
Drake- Started From the Bottom
not to speculate on what watt will or won't say, but frankly how can it be any worse then what demarco has been saying and doing for the last few years. the baseline is not neutral. i say there is a lot more room for positive developments than negative, particularly given the additional political pressure that has mounted.
I would argue though that a fundamental rewiring of the system would only exacerbate the problem however. I think it is a matter of not throwing the baby out with the bath water. To me this is about preservation of the middle class. As large foreign and domestic interests are acquiring more real estate the median income in this country is continuing to decrease. If a system is put in place in the name of "taxpayer protection" that means fewer people are able to qualify for a loan (obviously within prudent underwriting standards), we are one step closer to becoming a nation of renters. And where is the equity going to go that taxpayers used to build for themselves. To the interests who are quietly acquiring the real estate currently.
mReits are a small fraction of the capital required to sustain the market. the "game" is way bigger than that.
Additionally, given that the mean Cap rate for commercial real estate is in the 6-9% range, one might argue that those bank skyscrapers "littering every downtown", offer a far batter ROI then deploying the same capital to finance residential mortgages at 200 to 500 basis points less.
you are completely overlooking the process of securitization. f and f are vital because the risk is passed on to investors in the form of agency mbs. that is where the capital comes from, investors. those investors are willing to assume the interst rate risk associated with the securities which can be hedged against. the "implicit garuntee" mitigates credit risk. changing this will cause an increase in the cost of that capital, and likely cause a contraction in the amount of capital that is deployed in the debt market. it isn't as simple as banks riding the gravy train. it seems as though your perception of the issue is primarily ideological, but lacking any real pragmatism. if you are proposing and end to the securitization of mortgages on the whole, where do you think the money is going to come from to finance mortgages?
ruh roh shorties.
maybe we will get some softening from the fhfa's stance on tues. by my calculations we just need 1.21 gigaWATTS and we go back to the future.
the problem with what you propose is that the tba market for agency mbs is the 2nd largest debt market in the world. as indicated by buffet himself there is not the private capital available to simply set up private pools of capital as a substitute. the additional capital is available to the current system because of the homogeneity and fungability of f and f securities. it is not quite as simple as you make it out to be, and large managers such as pimco have gone on record against proposals similar to what you are proposing.
the writing is on the wall.
i agree. so good. remember when it was floating around that he was working on a bill to restructure not eliminate, but then he deferred to johnson and crapo. looks like he didn't agree after all.
well with toomey(R) being on record as a no, i think that decidedly puts them shy of 16. of course their internal support could have eroded as well....
well done
i am gonna assume it was my letter to schumer that swayed him
I think you have your facts a bit muddled.
The senator fom Virginia is MARK Warner. Bob Corker is the other Senator from Tennessee involved with the Corker-Warner bill, which is long dead. They are in fact both full of nonsense however. Warner went on record saying he expected a 30:1 return from the governments "investment." Greed and nonsense.