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.
Seriously? Don't worry about gov bills affecting you? Where do they fall on the balance sheet?
fmckj going back up after hours :)
2.27, up 6% today
fnma close up 6%, fnmas up 8.65%
The American Bankers Association – through its Corporation for American Banking subsidiary – has renewed its endorsement of Fannie Mae’s secondary market options.
ABA says the options help community banks remain competitive in their local markets.
Since the partnership began in 2002, Fannie Mae has helped participating banks effectively compete in their market while managing their interest rate risk.
This endorsement provides reduced transaction fees on Desktop Underwriter – Fannie Mae’s automated underwriting technology; customized training; updates to keep lenders current on critical issues; and customizable marketing materials.
“Our alliance with Fannie Mae allows ABA member banks to take full advantage of the secondary market,” said Ken Burgess chairman of ABA’s Endorsed Solutions Banker Advisory Council “We’re confident this continued relationship will help our bankers meet their customers’ mortgage financing needs.” Burgess is also chairman, FirstCapital Bank of Texas, Midland, Texas.
“We value our long-standing relationship with ABA and their support in serving the needs of their membership,” said Jennifer Whip, vice president for customer engagement, Fannie Mae. “Fannie Mae will continue to work closely with the ABA as we support the housing recovery today and build a sustainable mortgage finance system for the future.”
http://www.housingwire.com/articles/32742-aba-renews-endorsement-of-fannie-mae-secondary-market-options?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=housingwire
Maybe it's good. He wasn't able to squeeze in one bit of bad news in his article. He had to counteract that with at least being one of the first to report it. :)
Those in on the call.
S&P reportedly close to massive mortgage-bond rating settlement
WSJ: Department of Justice may get billions
Ben Lane
January 28, 2015
Standard & Poor’s is reportedly closing in on a $1.37 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and more than a dozen states over claims that S&P knowingly mislead investors by issuing trumped up ratings for pre-crisis residential mortgage-backed securities.
According to a report from the Wall St. Journal, the Justice Department would receive $687 million from S&P and the states would receive a similar amount to settle claims that were first levied against S&P two years ago.
In 2013, the DOJ and the group of states filed a civil suit against Standard & Poor's, and its parent company McGraw-Hill, for allegedly misleading investors who put money behind RMBS and collateralized debt obligations.
At the time, Attorney General Eric Holder said that S&P "falsely claimed that its ratings were independent, objective, and not influenced by the company's relationship with issuers who hired S&P to rate the securities in question."
S&P claimed at the time that the claims by the DOJ were “meritless” and said, “Claims that we deliberately kept ratings high when we knew they should be lower are simply not true."
S&P later said that the U.S. government was retaliating against them because the ratings agency stripped the country of its AAA credit rating.
But now, the ratings agency is reportedly days away from announcing the massive settlement, which according to the WSJ report would be the largest amount paid by a ratings agency to resolve allegations of inflating bond grades in the pre-crisis era.
From the WSJ report:
A final pact isn’t yet signed, and the process could still drift into next week, the people said. But the states are close to completing their portion of the deal, which had been viewed as a potential delay on announcing the settlement, the people (familiar with the negotiations) said.
Most states will receive between $20 million to $25 million, though others will get more, the people said.
The settlement would mark the second time in less than a week that S&P has faced serious consequences from regulators over its ratings practices.
Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged S&P with fraudulent misconduct related to the ratings of commercial-mortgage backed securities.
As HousingWire Executive Editor Jacob Gaffney wrote last week, part of the SEC charges against S&P also related to its ratings of RMBS transactions in the post-crisis era.
From the SEC order:
A third SEC order issued in this case involved internal controls failures in S&P’s surveillance of residential mortgage-backed securities ratings. The order finds that S&P allowed breakdowns in the way it conducted ratings surveillance of previously-rated RMBS from October 2012 to June 2014.
S&P changed an important assumption in a way that made S&P’s ratings less conservative, and was inconsistent with the specific assumptions set forth in S&P’s published criteria describing its ratings methodology.
S&P did not follow its internal policies for making changes to its surveillance criteria and instead applied ad hoc workarounds that were not fully disclosed to investors.
As a result of these charges, the SEC banned S&P from rating similar CMBS deals for a year. S&P agreed to pay more than $58 million to settle the SEC’s charges, plus an additional fines to three attorneys general. The fines cover the false ratings of six conduit fusion CMBS transactions in 2011.
And now it appears that S&P is about to fork over a lot more than $58 million for its ratings failings.
http://www.housingwire.com/articles/32744-sp-reportedly-close-massive-mortgage-bond-rating-settlement?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=housingwire
01/28/2015 Minute Entry - Was the proceeding sealed to the public? N. Proceeding held in Washington, DC on 1/28/2015 at 10:00 a.m., ended on 1/28/2015, before Judge Margaret M. Sweeney: Status Conference. [Total number of days of proceeding: 1]. Official Record of proceeding taken via electronic digital recording (EDR). To order a certified transcript or an audio copy of the proceeding (click HERE) (ta)
Oh definitely. Just curious of her reaction, do these people even know the statute, constitution, rule of law? :)
I wonder if Sweeney watched the hearing yesterday? :)
As long as no criminal activity involved, government cannot take your property without due process
my fluff account :)
Awesome!!
3.2 million vol now
weeee!!!!
correct!! :)
Royce statement Dec 11, 2014
"Contrary to what Fannie and Freddie apologists claim, the GSEs have yet to repay any of the taxpayer-funded bailout funds they received, which makes today's announcement by the FHFA outrageous. Money coming in from the GSEs should go to the taxpayers instead of a slush fund for ideological housing groups to play around with.”
status conference tomorrow at 10am EST, but they are very cranky now about anyone trying to listen in :) We'll probably have to wait for tweets and leaks after.
01/26/2015 NOTICE REGARDING EX PARTE AND OTHER INAPPROPRIATE COMMUNICATIONS TO CHAMBERS. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (ta) Copy to parties.
That's probably the mindset of the hedgies. I'm probably better off riding their coattails, then out here, flailing, hoping congress or appointees will do something. :)
Yes, Lew can end sweep, Watt or congress can end conservatorship. If they don't get some cojones and speak up, discovery will force a hand or Pratt, Sweeney, Wheeler will rule and it will snowball.
Kick open the back door then!!!
That sounds right
Lew could end the sweep. Why isn't he up there publicly answering the questions? Why can't we get Lew before the congress?
Just US Reps House Committee on Financial services
Supposed to be full committee (some probably missed) :)
Jeb Hensarling, Texas, Chairman
Peter T. King, New York
Edward R. Royce, California
Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma
Scott Garrett, New Jersey
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Bill Posey, Florida
Michael G. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
Lynn A. Westmoreland, Georgia
Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri
Bill Huizenga, Michigan
Sean P. Duffy, Wisconsin
Robert Hurt, Virginia
Steve Stivers, Ohio
Stephen Lee Fincher, Tennessee
Marlin A. Stutzman, Indiana
Mick Mulvaney, South Carolina
Randy Hultgren, Illinois
Dennis A. Ross, Florida
Robert Pittenger, North Carolina
Ann Wagner, Missouri
Andy Barr, Kentucky
Keith J. Rothfus, Pennsylvania
Luke Messer, Indiana
David Schweikert, Arizona
Bob Dold, Illinois
Frank Guinta, New Hampshire
Scott Tipton, Colorado
Roger Williams, Texas
Bruce Poliquin, Maine
Mia Love, Utah
French Hill, Arkansas
Maxine Waters, California, Ranking Member
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Nydia M. Velázquez, New York
Brad Sherman, California
Gregory W. Meeks, New York
Michael E. Capuano, Massachusetts
Rubén Hinojosa, Texas
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
David Scott, Georgia
Al Green, Texas
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
Gwen Moore, Wisconsin
Keith Ellison, Minnesota
Ed Perlmutter, Colorado
James A. Himes, Connecticut
John C. Carney, Jr., Delaware
Terri A. Sewell, Alabama
Bill Foster, Illinois
Daniel T. Kildee, Michigan
Patrick Murphy, Florida
John K. Delaney, Maryland
Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona
Joyce Beatty, Ohio
Denny Heck, Washington
Juan Vargas, California
Contact UsPrivacy Policy2129 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515T (202) 225-7502Press (202) 226-0471
I agree
Yes, if you click on the link there, the whole time they're talking about Dir of Fhfa.
Thanks! saving that post!
Director is Director of Fhfa
FSOC meeting Friday. Lew will be there and I'm guessing Watt. In case today wasn't long enough, that one is 9-4:30pm :)
We'll have to ask at their next conference call. Last one was a 3rd quarter update, maybe they'll have a 4th quarter update soon. We can ask Bruce B on Feb 3rd his thoughts.
But, you're right it would be nice for congress to have Lew before the panel. Ask why don't you end the sweep "agreement"? Treasury can end it themselves, right? Then we can back to hammering Watt to end conservatorship.
he told Watt to get with Treasury if congress cannot produce legislation.
Yes, and I was talking about the pspa right there. For conservatorship, it says the director of Fhfa may end. But back to pspa, very concerning that he is afraid, won't speak up.
It' an agreement between Treasury and FHFA, and it says the Treasury may break the agreement, right? So Watt's part needs to be just to speak up and say, I don't support the agreement, I ask the Treasury to end the agreement.
Yes, you can see how Treasury has gotten away with it for so long. No one will propose it, even at a hearing.
Also using Housing Trust Fund to back in, prompt discussion
Like a football game. They have to call timeout to try and break the momentum.
uh oh, mic on :)