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.
Have not seen this posted.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/07/fairholme-favorable-ruling-in-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-case/
Short, concise but clear analysis of J. Sweeney's recent ruling.
That's fine and maybe you have a point. All I tried to say is that when it comes to taxes Treasury *might* have a say as they are directly involved.
I am afraid thinking this way could be a stretch.
I pay my taxes issuing a check to the *US Treasury Dpt*. On their website, they claim a role in "managing the U.S. Government’s finances and resources". Don't you think that they will have a say when it comes to massive tax-credits that may or may not affect their money flow?
Court cases VS Congress action
Some think that court cases will just take too long and that this provides the needed time for lawmen to work out a reform and that this is "by design".
I actually think that congressmen/women do not want to interfere with the courts, are very aware of them, and that their preference is that all litigation comes to an end prior to any discussion/negotiation/compromise. A ruling -any- will pave the way for a final solution.
I believe that courts may also assess the situation this way, that nothing of any legal magnitude can be accomplished until judgments are final. If this theory is correct we should see litigations resolved just in time for a new Congress. My thinking based on nothing.
Thank you brandemarcus. Interesting. I have it on my watch list.
Beta, congrats on your realized gains.
I am not qualified to opine on commons. Never owned them and really, have no opinion. I think the argument for owning preferred shares is substantially different than the arguments floating around for owning common shares. I do not view the commons in any light. I am simply not interested.
Syncora is interesting but, a) is way over my head and b) looks like they are in the middle of some Detroit-Puerto Rico upheaval.
I really can't say Syncora equals FF. FF were/are atypical bets and are atypical companies. Syncora is an insurer/re-insurer that went bust. There may be room for a bet though and the fact that some funds are looking to legally block the new debt restructuring law in PR may favor buying.
My only comment is this: if I were to take profits on my FF bets I would not know what to buy next. No idea! Whatever could be inflated from the 2008 debacle it already has been. What is left is such crap that seems to be inflatable-resistant :(
As far as the President goes, who knows. Geithner and DeMarco are gone, which doesn't hurt.
Exactly.
Re President
That is what I found surprising. How could he know? What are his sources? The analyst/market strategist -appears to be Robbert van Batenburg- writes as if he has heard/learned something. Nothing that is public today can be construed as the President being inclined to a 'brokered settlement for equity friendly GSE reform'. At least not yet. Signals are just the opposite. Talking out of his behind? Although socgen is serious enough...
44, those bonds look like "deep value" lol. Let us know.
wow.
I am a bit speechless with this analysis. It really looks like we are turning the corner, for good. If it has any validity...
So, is this NewEdge the american branch for Societe Generale?
pdf here
Thanks for the post.
P.S. Start buying coal stocks now!
a fiduciary, must avoid “self-dealing”
Letgo, if I understood the order correctly it doesn't look like it was a complete loss for the US gov. Doesn't it say "proceed with discovery up to 17/8/2012" but also "propose a protective order"? Doesn't it say that there has to be an explicit reason presented by parties for the documents requested as part of the 1st wave of discovery?
So while discovery seems to have been granted it doesn't look like it will be broad, full blown. The door is still open for the government to acquire some selective protection??
Will read again the order in case I missed something.
Beta, I think taint has one that he recommends.
Can you reach him via private message/email?
Thank you, taint!
Got both messages. Can't reply. Thank you for the advice too. Will look into it.
OT: taint... help please.
I have no experience with corporate bonds.
Are any of these high-yielders any good? Have never purchased a bond in my life.
Arch Coal 9.875% 15/6/2019
Alpha Natural Resources 9.75% 15/4/2018
Altria Group 9.95% 10/11/2038
AMC Entertainment 8.75% AMC Entertainment 8.75%
Avis Budget Car Rental 9.75% 15/3/2020
APX Group 8.75% 1/12/2020
Berry Plastics 9.75% Berry Plastics 9.75%
Burlington Coat Factory 10% 15/2/2019
Carrizo Oil & Gas 8.625% 15/10/2018
Boyd Gaming 9% 1/7/2020
CDW Finance 8.5% 1/4/2019
Chrysler Group 8.25% 15/6/2021
Comstock Resources 9.5% 15/6/2020
Clear Channel Communication 9% 1/3/2021
Goodman Networks 12.125% 1/7/2018
Halcon Resources 9.75% 15/7/2020
Frontier Communications 9.25% 1/7/2021
HD Supply 11.5% 15/7/2020
Interactive Data 10.25% 1/8/2018
JM Huber 9.875% 1/11/2019
MGM Resorts International 11.375% 1/3/2018
Momentive Performance Materials 10% 15/10/2020
Reynolds Group 9% 15/4/2019
Vedanta Resources 9.5% 18/7/2018
Yes.
But let's not forget this was written prior to even Lehman.
Still, his general thinking seems to fit "reform" more than anything else.
David Brat '08 paper on the financial crisis. FWIW.
http://www.roanoke.edu/business/SEINFORMS%202009%20-%20Proceedings/proc/p090530001.pdf
Smells like reform to me. Although it was written in 08' and presented in 10/09.
That was wonderful, Obit. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Maybe.
But he also said in another interview that FF taking 70% of subprimes is what lead to the crisis. So he may still support reform/privatization/elimination of charters. And even with banks involved in any reform, rule of law and property rights issues may play to our benefit.
feral
here is one
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dave-brat-talks-big-victory-on-hannity-its-a-miracle/
* free markets are indisputable the cause of our wealth,
* constitutional principles,
* personal responsibility and discipline,
* regulatory burden has to go,
* encourages *strong rule of law*, *protection of property rights*,
* nothing left or right about the rule of law. Principles matter.
No direct mention of FF.
Why is the Executive Branch (WH? UST? FHFA? DOJ?) concerned about the FHFA -as not being the United States-. ?
"Why is the administration concerned about a 3rd party? "
1. As a threshold matter, the deliberative process privilege applies only to communications within the Executive Branch. “The deliberative process privilege is a shield which the executive branch may use to deflect public scrutiny away from its internal decision making process.” Disc. Order No. 6 at 6, Starr Int’l Co. v. United States, No. 11-779 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 6, 2013), Doc. 182 (hereinafter “Starr Order”) (F40). It “protects only inter-agency or intra-agency documents. Disclosure to a non-agency third party waives the privilege.” Id.at 11 (F45). The Government has argued in its motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ taking claim that FHFA “is not the United States when it acts as conservator.” MTD 12. This is what it said to this Court: “Plaintiffs’ claims against FHFA and its actions as conservator are effectively claims against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—neither of which are alleged to be a Government entity. . . . By suing the conservatorships, Plaintiffs . . . are effectively suing private corporations for the decisions of their management.” Id.at 14.
The Government’s position thus precludes it from now asserting the deliberative process privilege as to any communication or document to which Fannie or Freddie, or FHFA as their conservator, was a party or recipient. The government can hardly assert as a defense to Plaintiffs’ taking claim that FHFA as conservator is not a government agency and then turn around and assert a privilege available only to government agencies to prevent Plaintiffs from discovering information necessary to prove the contrary.
No prob.
And I appreciate your gentle manner of acknowledging I paid for it. Other forums simply steal it and give no credit (which I don't care anyway).
New filing Perry Vs Lew
http://www.pacermonitor.com/view/X3XKAJQ/PERRY_CAPITAL_LLC_v_LEW_et_al__dcdce-13-01025__0047.0.pdf
Impressive. Such clear thinking. This is it.
Thank you for the thorough response, Obit.
I guess "federal" was the key word regarding the protective order motion. For some reason I thought the DOJ's request was an admission that FHFA is the US, therefore was acting as the United States in its dealing with the PSPAs and not as an independent agency. But the "federal" interpretation threw some light on that. The 'back in the driver's seat' mention was also a reference to the self-dealing issue brought up by Ted Olson/Richard Epstein. But in light of your answer it doesn't appear so.
44.
If her court finally happens to have jurisdiction will the case at the District Court fall apart?
That is correct, 44c.
Vultures... lol
It's good for us.
Although argentines are cleaning up their act because the country needs to borrow again from international markets. Not that they suddenly believe in the rule of law. It's just self-interest. Domestic reserves are down to 25/28bill and they are facing a bumpy road ahead. Just last week they successfully negotiated with the Paris Club and the last remaining issue are the holdouts. IMF most likely told them to wrap up the 2000/2001 default if they want to be taken seriously. In addition, these steps may try to appease the SCOTUS which can send the country into technical default with an unfavorable ruling.
In any case, that last IMF warning is what matters to us. It means "don't mess with investors. Respect contracts (rule of law)."
"Undue burden"
Problem is that the government requests protection based on undue burden of an independent agency. Not based on undue burden upon itself. They want to protect someone else.
Why is the administration concerned about a 3rd party?
Back in the driver's seat again?
P.S. And thank you for clarifying the scope of a possible protective order. Always great reading your posts.
Obit, does this mean that a judge may rule for "selective" confidentiality of specific documents in the discovery process? And those confidential documents that aren't objected by the court/plaintiff will stay out of the public eye?
I think the "deliberative" protection has actually some logic. What is illogic is the government being worried about the effects of disclosure on an agency that -supposedely- is independent. If independent, it is not the government's problem. By stating so, the government seems again to be in the "driver's seat".
Why do you guys like to gamble your money away? Will be losing all hard earned dollars from this play. Sometimes is simply a once in a lifetime. Once!
At worst, bitcoin will be completely controlled by governments. They will find a way to regulate it. At best, it will become a commodity. Another currency. And will be played as such.
Not exactly right. Vacating the 3rd does not necessarily mean the money returns to the GSEs in a straight line. That is only one alternative in a ruling, if it comes to that. We do not know what the judge may consider doing about that money. Or if Treasury proposes a different outcome.
From The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/05/taking-stock-shareholder-lawsuits-no-barrier-to-gse-dissolution
Dissolve, but respect property rights.
Five stars. Thank you, Obit.
Interesting housing related article
Expect a Step Up in Housing Demand
Well, thanks. But I have been in preferreds continously since 10' and have never touched the commons. I just think he is misreading the filing leading to wrong assessments. So mine was a "public service post".
But it is me the one mistaken I want to know.
Where does it say he dumped common shares?
I looked into all 3 funds filings at the SEC and there were no filings indicating sales. All had for the last 6 months about 20 mill of Fannie and 17 mill of Freddie.
Well, it's good to have someone on board that can remain calm...
Perhaps you are right about Watt. But his choice of words "I am comfortable with..." was unfortunate.
I still think it is gross negligence to say "I inherited a situation which -apparently- I have to live with". He may have tried a Clinton hand answering some of the questions but with a lot less IQ.
I also think Nick T. did a great job inquiring him. Without being too aggressive he tried his best to point at the inconsistencies in his acts/thoughts. It was obvious both reporters did see conflict/inconsistencies. Or that there are issues.
This week we will read in the media different interpretations. I really think Watt is walking on a tight rope. Although he can continue doing so for another 5 years.