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.
The Defendants were allowed to select which privilege log documents fit the criteria of the March 7th order.
Wait, so basically they get to omit whatever they find damning? I mean not officially. But I sense a whole new commotion about them choosing to omit the damning ones under the guise of them not fitting the criteria, and plaintiffs accusing them of hiding the damning documents. How will we know if they fit the criteria and not hiding some?
We went over this so many times. Go look at Maria's "like" history on Twitter.
Obit, is there any indication of which documents will be produced and when? Will we be able to see it or will the plaintiffs make any indication as to what is in them? Anyway for us to know how damning these are?
Also, " privilege log documents ". Which documents are these? The 11,000? Do they have to submit all 11,000 now? Or the ~50 or so? I feel like so many things here required you to be following for quite some time before.
MSM tried to cover it yesterday. Maria wanted to ask but Trump team said not to ask about it.
GSEs were top 5 comments on Maria's Twitter when she asked what questions she should ask. Someone said "Let us know if Trump team asks you not to ask about GSEs" and she liked that comment, giving a strong hint that she was not asked to bring it up. Why would she not bring it up personally? She did it to Mnuchin twice. She would have done it again, only reason she didn't was because she was asked not to.
I have read over the document and don’t fully understand everything.
Too many possible reasons behind why that may have happened.
False pop, someone decided to fund this false pop across all commons and preferreds dropping tens of millions in one hour
She already hinted that she was asked not to bring it up.
Now the question is, why was she asked not to bring it up?
No but I can give you another hopeful prediction - RickNagra
FFS why is the court system so long? Why would they need more than a week to respond to any of this?
Because longs stayed in despite price drop, and day traders aren't watching news 24/7. Who cares about price. Ya, it's a nice mental cushion, but if you're in, then you're in for the end. If you're out, enjoy thinking that someone will sell you their shares for anything less than $10 once recap or release announced.
$4.26 close watch
What news source would have asked that question? Fox is our best bet. If they're not asking, nobody will.
It was a 251,100 sell at 5.50. Then it was a 251,100 buy at 5.54. Almost like they accidentally sold, or some kind of glitch lol.
Do we know of any plans to move this to SCOTUS now that Gorsuch is confirmed?
1. I am not sure he is even making those posts on his Twitter.
2. I am not sure about the time he put into the story, might have just retweeted once he saw a bad Obama headline.
Could not have been more unsurprised to see Corker's face.
Ya it would be good (hopefully) to finally see how familiar Trump is with the GSEs scandal.
Maria's Twitter feed is flooded with Fanniegate stuff. She's familiar with the topic and has asked Mnuchin twice about it in the past few months. If she doesn't ask him about it, it will be because Trump personally asked her not to ask about it when screening the questions before the interview.
(((Snopes))) is partnered with Soros. Fake news.
Doubt Howard would lie outright. Only honest way without talking to him is by analysing previous job positions, actions, and comments of his. He said it was likely they would meet, and he keeps talking about what Mnuchin "knows". Interpret it however you like, but even it's just analysis, he was right on NWS going through, as well, he was sure to say he was "hopeful" of Phillips' position, while omitting that word when talking about Mnuchin's knowledge.
Not sure, but he explicitly said a month or two ago, that he would not say whether he did or didn't meet with Mnuchin. I would imagine that if he said that he did meet with him, then people would assume all of his opinions going forth are Mnuchin's opinions (especially if they are a bit out of the ordinary), ruining any kind of confidentiality Mnuchin would be able confide with him.
"I generally don’t talk about or publicize who I’m meeting or corresponding with, or what I say to them, because I think I can be more effective operating behind the scenes. "
"As for Secretary Mnuchin, although I’ve not yet met with him, it’s very likely that I will at some point. But when I do I won’t talk about it in this blog, or beyond a very small circle of people.
My goal is to do what I can to help get to the right solution on mortgage reform. I understand that most of the readers of this blog also have a goal of getting maximum value for their investments in Fannie and Freddie, be they common or preferred, in a minimum period of time, and for that they’d like frequent reports on how the battle is going. For my purposes, though, sometimes it makes sense to give those, and sometimes it doesn’t. I hope people understand."
Also check Howard's blog for his comment on Phillips. Doesn't know him well enough to comment, apart that he would hope his previous knowledge would make him know that TBTF bank model doesn't work. And says:
"And if there are gaps in his experience or inaccuracies in his knowledge base, Secretary Mnuchin should be able to help remediate them."
Again, making a claim on what Mnuchin "should" know.
Tim Howard said he would not let us know if he ever met with Mnuchin or government. Also has commented on what Mnuchin "knows" (regarding the poor Perrott's and TBTF proposals) or will do regarding NWS. Maybe he has already met with him?
Like Mnuchin said, they are staying out of DOJ affairs and focusing on reform going forward.
Here is what I believe is going on:
DOJ is fighting hard for 11,000 documents' secrecy so that they can buy time (prevent) some high ranking people from getting into deep shit. These same people are meeting with Mnuchin to "ask" him to buy time or not get them into deep shit by releasing the documents, and/or find a way to avoid them getting in shit if they are ever broken loose. Documents are critical to reform to find out what actually happened. Phillips knows what actually happened, having Phillips responsible for reform requires one less person to know what really happened. So reform direction isn't the only thing they are meeting in regards to, probably their jailing as well.
Yes it reeks of swamp. But what makes me bullish is that Mnuchin was committed to freeing FnF from the beginning. Could indicate that this was a Trump plan and a reason for his appointment. He said it confidently like he was very familiar with the issue. In later interviews he was more hesitant as now there were other parties complicating things. I think his base sentiment is unchanged, but now is finding ways to accommodate new players. Also in every interview or statement regarding "working with congress" he has been iffy, always indicating that it is not necessary if it doesn't work out. What actions are available for him to undertake without Congress? Bullish ones. Why would he always include the non-legislative approach? Because he has a goal in mind, and knows that previous legislative action hasn't aligned with it and that he might have to move alone to achieve what he wants, which is what he so confidently and happily exclaimed in that original Fox News Bartiromo interview.
I don't think that's Tim Howard
You mean 5.27
He said explicitly that is being handled by the DOJ. He said "what's being done in this building, is housing reform going forward".
Why do we trust him? I guess because he said "leaving FnF in the exact state that they are in, under government control, cannot happen for the next 4 years"
Well Mnuchin said the decision was good for the Treasury. While in the same interview saying that they are good for mortgage liquidity and need to get out of government control.
Trust at this point is in Mnuchin. Tim Howard explained why bank risk model would not work and says Mnuchin would know that. Also I don't know the legality or politics of just firing all the old attorneys and dropping the cases. Small banks are also meeting with White House and Trump has expressed huge interest in helping small and community banks.
So in other words, it seems he knows what is in a few thousand of the 11,000 hidden documents. He seems to be the right guy for the job, the only question is what are his personal objectives and goals?
With Mnuchin wanting a release of FnF, and claiming they are good for housing liquidity, I wonder if he would let him get away with what TBTF wants. Howard broke down why Perrott's plan would not work and also claimed Mnuchin would see that.
Closing green.
A trend I've noticed is that many people that have gone to university don't plan on buying houses for many years after graduating. After living with room mates for at least 4 years, one gets very used to it. With student debts and no pressing need to buy a house, many choose to remain living with room mates.
If you have some people you don't mind living with, like family, it really isn't a bad idea to split a home and pay into it, dividing it 3 or 4 ways.
Mnuchin: "FFF- I forgot about the NWS!"
Trump: "No problem, just give it back to them and let them build capital!"
Mnuchin: "Awesome thanks!"
Trump: "Don't mention it, you're awesome, just glad we could do the right thing!"
It hasn't happened yet.
45 minute meeting with Mnuchin.
I would think that as well, however we don't know for sure what he means when he says he wants it done through Congress. Does he consider recapitalisation something that Congress needs to decide on?
Many questions surrounding Watt, this sums everything up nicely in my opinion.
1. Is adamant about Congress being involved in housing reform. Would probably not have accepted Mnuchin's attempt to singlehandedly start process of recapitalisation.
2. Committed to a safe and solvent FnF.
3. Is not willing to offer perspectives on housing reform.
Someone post the letter @sebastianfaun got from Mel Watt on Twitter, I am on my phone
Thanks
Why would they have waited this long and pursued other appeals, rather than going straight to en banc? Just trying to understand the process, new to this. Thanks