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.
Only those that read #Fanniegate daily know why the stocks rally.
In the latest analysis, both the defendant and the plaintiff are accused of perjury, that is, an attempt to mislead the judges with lies, with regard to the letter sent by the Solicitor General to the Supreme Court and the reply brief by the plaintiff.
Both said that FnF are building up capital now, when that's false. The attorney Thompson said that it's "ephemeral" because he implies that no journal entry (how transactions get recorded on the companies' books on a daily basis) is required at the time of the transaction, so the Capital amount will be reduced in the future, when the SPS are redeemed.
The truth is that an offset must be recorded at the time of the increase in the SPS Liquidation Preference for free and that reduces the Core Capital, so the outcome is that FnF aren't building up Capital.
The more felonies are committed, the more moral and punitive damages, because they act a settlement with the equity holders.
There isn't a dual authority of the FHFA. When the FHFA director appointed the FHFA as conservator, it can no longer be regulator until FnF are released from conservatorship.
The new rules are already set forth in the law.
The FHFA remains being a Federal Agency.
Different authority, not dual authority.
You don't need to say "thanks".
The emails aren't a substitution for the Law. So, no one cares what unknown people say one another on emails.
The first person that posts a statutory provision gets a cookie.
Why don't you post the statutory provisions like I'm doing?
The plaintiffs are being accused of covering them up for the assault attempt on the ownership of FnF, the common stock.
A little bit of history about the PRIME corrective action: the Restriction on Capital Distributions.
The fact that the FHEFSSA mirrors the banks' FDI Act, proves the point that this provision is the key. A provision concealed by the plaintiffs.
This is it!
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1378953460201181189.html
That Parrot guy is a Don Nadie. FnF are ruled by Laws, not by emails from a guy that I still don't know who is he.
The plaintiffs' tactic in Court is to add up all the garbage they can find in order to divert the attention from the statutory provisions that govern the conservatorship and the Charter.
The debate is when acting as conservator. I think that Kavanaugh was talking figuratively as a way to transmit the idea that the FHFA is at the helm of a private corporation and not the opposite, that Fannie Mae became a Federal Agency.
But the DOJ saw the opportunity to now claim that the U.S. isn't responsible for the FHFA's actions.
THE SHAREHOLDERS ISSUE A WARNING AGAINST JUSTICE KAVANAUGH
The then judge Kavanaugh ruled in a 2017 case (HERRON vs FNMA) that the FHFA changed its status, shed its Govt character and became a private party, when it was appointed conservator of FnF.
This is what the DOJ wants to hear from the Supreme Court as it's the reason why it wants the case dismissed in the CFC as outlined in its reply brief 10 days ago in the Appellate Court.
It explained that it agrees with the FHFA is an Agency, but it points out that it "shed its Govt character" and thus, "its actions aren't attributable to the Govt."
The thing is that no one cares what the DOJ and Kavanaugh mean with "character". The FHFA is a Federal Agency and the United States is liable for the FHFA's breach of the statutory provisions and also for the damages for carrying out a secret plan.
THE FnF SHAREHOLDERS WARN JUSTICE #KAVANAUGH ON HIS 2017 HERRON🆚FNMA RULING
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) April 4, 2021
Then judge:"@FHFA changed its status & became a private party",which is what @TheJusticeDept seeks to dismiss the case.
It's always an Agency.Thus,it can't shed its Govt character.Huh?#Fanniegate @Scotus https://t.co/2US0tlBtEH pic.twitter.com/ixAZRVunYd
The plaintiff Bryndon Fisher has no shame and he comes to this board seeking a public recognition reward, after seeking the same with his pathetic behavior in court, begging judge Sweeney to continue in the Appellate court despite that Fairholme is the de facto lead plaintiff. So, he's the "special" plaintiff that has to be treated different and he's allowed to file briefs as Amicus every time the Court sends a brief to Fairholme, an Amicus brief that won't be read by the judge, obviously.
He agrees with the 10% dividend to Treasury, when FnF have special borrowing rights from Treasury in the Charter.
He also is reluctant to challenge the warrant until it's exercised. So, he, in truth, is negotiating exercising the warrant and later start a multi-year litigation in court with a "derivative claim" (he says), when every action like this one, can only be challenged as a breach of one of the statutory provisions that he covers up. For instance, the warrant is a security that the UST was only authorized to purchase under its TEMPORARY authority in HERA, "to protect the taxpayer". A protection means a collateral of its investment in SPS.
Another "accessory" working for the investors that want to rip us off.
Guido and Fisher praise each other as mandated, but this is my award: cookie?
They fool no one.
The NWS, the warrant, the 10% dividend, the SPS increased for free and the payment of moral and punitive damages.
You only say the NWS, like the conspirators Pagliara, Ackman, Berkowitz, Bryndon Fisher and T. Howard that want to steal my property.
Step aside.
Pagliara, Ackman, Berkowitz and Tim Howard to the BOD?
It's time to unmask the internet users that are praising the investors that want to harm our economic interests and these four are the best example.
Please, leave this message board and Yahoo's.
BRADFORD PRAISING PagLIARa IS OUTRAGEOUS.
These conspirators that want to rip us off aren't ashamed of praising each other in tweets and articles, like the latest article by Bradford.
They call themselves "shareholders' rights advocates", when they really advocate for is the 10% dividend to Treasury for stock offerings, the warrant exercised by the UST and a conversion of JPS for common stock, which translates into a dilution of 98% of the existing common shareholders.
It means that they steal 98% of our current EPS.
If you agree with them, step aside. These are serious allegations agaist them that will last well after the resolution of Fanniegate and you don't want to be involved.
Great link posted by Guido. Thanks for your contributions.
Keep it up! Lol
You can open the page in Incognito mode through a new window.
Tim PagLIARa is a LIAR. There's no theft.
Someone posted on Twitter several excerpts from his book and this is the response from a shareholder, who is sick of this hedge fund manager that wants to rip us off.
PagLIARa
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) March 31, 2021
Conditions & Restrictions of the Authority of UST to Purchase Obligations are set forth in the Law, including that the capital distributions are restricted unless it's meant (B)to reduce the SPS & the CFR (1) added "for Recap" in 2011.#Fanniegate @TheJusticeDept @Scotus https://t.co/xrzFQsYk9q pic.twitter.com/UjethiaYsl
Another guy praising Bradford, who wants to steal from me. If you don't understand that his plan translates into a dilution of 98% of my ownership in FnF, it's simply because you don't understand finance.
He wants FnF to pay a 10% dividend, restructuring of the SPS and the JPS, which means conversion for common stocks and the warrant exercised. This translates into multiple stock offerings so that the hedge fund managers behind him, take over the ownership of FnF.
The heroes are the villains.
SCOTUS is EQUIPPED to access DAMAGES or plaintiff AWARDS, because it's the highest Court in the U.S. and, as any High Court, it can direct a lower Court to rule in the manner that it has laid out in its "opinion", including damages.
It's a final ruling.
He owns common stocks as an alibi. I bet that he's a simple custodian of the stocks held by others. So, it's been staged.
Pagliara isn't a shareholder advocate, but a John Paulson advocate.
Pagliara wants to rip-off the shareholders. That's why he endorses the 10% dividend to Treasury, the Warrant and a conversion of JPS for Common Stocks.
His objective is stock offerings for him and his buddies.
No one steals from me in plain sight. You are a JPS holder, that's why you praise this scam artist.
Again, the story of the Govt theft is an alibi for the current stock price manipulation.
He has fought hard, but for the wrong cause.
Tim Pagliara is a conman. He set up a phony Association of Shareholders to trick them into accepting his plans that agree with the 10% dividend to Treasury, the warrant exercised and a conversion of the JPS for common stock, seeking stock offerings for him and his buddies hedge fund managers.
The story of the Govt theft is an alibi for the crime of stock price manipulation.
There's no theft under the Law and common business practices. The dividend is suspended for the recapitalization and the repayment of the taxpayer's assistance.
Gas bag lies in every tweet. He is even paid for running the story of his brother almost died of COVID.
We already knew that the Govt wants to settle the lawsuit brought by the attorney for Fairholme. Mnuchin and his buddy Berkowitz sharing the booty.
The Justices are aware of this conspiracy to rip-off the shareholders.
The 10% dividend and the warrant are illegal in the charter.
Also, the attorney doesn't challenge the SPS that are being increased for free every quarter since the 4th amendment.
The Justices won't accept the settlement.
The DOJ's letter was not required by Scotus, otherwise we would have seen the brief with the requirement.
Every brief passes through the Court dockets.
You made it up.
All the lawsuits are meritless with the Secret Plan.
only reason for DOJ to write SCOTUS letter on a pending case would be response to question posed to them from SCOTUS ..
***BOMBSHELL*** The FHFA shouldn't have ordered the "elimination" of the common stock par value on day one of conservatorship. Primarily, because it was not an elimination but an accounting reclassification from par value to Additional Paid-In Capital. Both represent shareholders' money. The thing is that a common stock par value cannot be reclassified. It can be distributed to the shareholders or reduced/increased with a stock split/reverse split. Having a common stock par value is irrelevant for the stock price or for the shareholders and the company. Usually it's as little as $0.01ps or $1ps. A common stock no par value is irrelevant too. So, another unlawful act that maybe aimed to spread the lie of "nationalization" or "distressed restructuring". More detail on #Fanniegate.
The SPSPA isn't a contract but a paper that outlines what is stipulated (authorized) in the Laws. Thus, it isn't a binding document. All the mobsters' take, like Rosner, the DOJ, Berkowitz, etc, is that the SPSPA is a binding contract and the DOJ claimed that the NWS was a renegotiation of that contract. A 10% dividend is unlawful in the Charter, period. The Charter is about privileges, like a "special borrowing right from Treasury" (professor Nielson in Scotus). This is why we must slam the people that praise the Republican Senator and famous shoe designer, Toomey Choo, who simply repeated Mnuchin's and his buddy Berkowitz's view that seeks a settlement of the lawsuits and only a $29 billion refund to FnF, leading to multiple stock offerings for the recapitalization, swap JPS for Commons to meet the CET1 ratio and the warrant excercised under the 6th amendment to the PA. Now, who is the moron that repeats the word "Toomey"?
FMCC valued the issuance of the warrant at $2.3 billion ($0.89ps) in the 3Q 2008 earnings report and, as it was issued at an exercise price of $0.00001ps, the difference was recorded as a charge on the Additional Paid-In Capital account of $2.3b, as I mentioned yesterday to Guido.
That's it! A Direct Claim!
I've shown you the amount and who paid for it. The damage was suffered by the common shareholders, not by FnF.
Tell it to your patron, the plaintiff Bryndon Fisher.
Again, the damage for issuing a warrant at a price different to the market price, isn't borne by the enterprises, regardless that it's money raised by the enterprises. That's not a damage.
The damage is that it's recorded as a charge on the shareholders' money in the balance sheet (Additional Paid-In capital account)
A DIRECT CLAIM.
That difference was recorded as a charge on the Additional Paid-In Capital account(shareholders' Equity)
That amount could also be challeged as a Direct Claim because, as you mention, the excersie price was well below the market price.
Never as Derivative claim which is what Guido and the plaintiff Fisher point out.
So, 2 Direct claims:
-The difference between the market price and the exercise price, that was charged on the shareholders' pockets in the 3Q 2008.
-If it's excercised, the damage caused by the dilution, because exercising the warrant isn't authorized in the law (collateral of the SPS)
Plus Moral and nominal Damages, assuming that the warrant should have been cancelled as collateral, when the SPS were redeemed under a Secret Plan, to uphold the law, because the warrant has prevented the stocks from trading at their fair value (now more than $200ps)
For the issuance of a warrant, what only matters is their market price, not their fair value. Are you suggesting that their fair value on day one of Conservatorship was $7ps? Why? They submitted a draw request to Treasury on the first quarter because they posted negative Net Worth (bankruptcy)
I don't know the closing price on that day, but I've told you that in the 3Q 2008 earnings reports, both GSEs recorded a charge on the Additional Paid-In Capital for the issuance of the warrant at an exercise price well below their market price. That account reflects the shareholders' money ponied up above the par value of the stock. So, the damage for the issuance of the warrant was already recorded on the shareholders' pockets.
I looked at it long time ago, and I'm not going to revisit it. If I'm not mistaken, it was a charge of $0.9 or $1.15ps.
The problem with the warrant is that it's a collateral of the SPS and thus, it should have been cancelled when the SPS were redeemed in 2013/2014 under the exception B to the Restriction On Capital Distributions. That's when a direct claim surges.
It's a Direct claim by the shareholders because the damage is borne by the shareholders, not by the enterprises.
$$$$ DILUTION $$$$$
No. Everything related to the stocks has nothing to do with the enterprises. Any charge for issuing stocks at a price markedly different to their fair value, is recorded as a charge on the shareholders' Additional Paid-In Capital account (the money ponied up by the shareholders above the par-value). Which is what happened in the 3Q 2008 earnings reports.
If FnF issue 2 billion new common stocks or 30 billion, it doesn't affect their Income Statements or balance sheet.
Thus, the harm is only suffered by the existing shareholders that see their stake in the corporations diluted and thus, their proportionate share of earnings (EPS)
Fairholme has a DERIVATIVE CLAIM in the Court of Federal Claims, not a Taking.
Thus, it asks for a refund to the enterprises. Obviously it's the amount above the 10% dividend because they only challenge the NWS, not the 10% dividend.
The song of DERIVATIVE CLAIM is repeated a thousand times by the plaintiff that has been stuck to Fairholme case in the Appellate Court, Fisher. He even mentioned last week in a SA comment that if the UST exercises the Warrant, it can be challenged with a............., you got it, DERIVATIVE CLAIM, when the one that suffers the economic harm is the existing shareholder, not FnF, in the case of exercising the warrant. Also since it was issued, as FnF report earnings on a diluted basis, but I've already given up explaining the effect of the warrant to financial illiterates.
Gary Hindes is wrong when he asserts that the Fairholme case in the Court of Federal Claims, challenges the NWS as a "Taking of private property without a just compensation".
We know that the plaintiffs simply ask for a refund of all the money funneled to Treasury above the 10% dividend. That is, $29 billion.
A Taking isn't authorized by Congress while in Conservatorship.
Also there's no "Taking" today (also known as eminent domain or Nationalization). There hasn't been divestiture of title to private property. He all have our stocks (and thus, the title to property) deposited in our broker accounts.
Gary Hindes is a liar clown.
The NWS is constitutional in companies under conservatorship, says Gary Hindes, who doesn't mention the statutory provisions.
Also he wants a Taking effective in 2012 due to the NWS, when the NWS wasn't authorized by Congress.
This guy is out of his mind. By the way, who is this guy? A clown.
Old article. Pay attention.
That's false. The law says that the Capital Distributions are only allowed to repay the SPS (HERA's Restriction On Capital Distributions. Exception B) or their recaptialization (2011 FHFA's 12 CFR 1237.12 (1))
If the Govt says that it's not what it's doing, more than $300 billion funneled to the Treasury must be returned and the plotters brought to Justice.
You are telling us a childish and low-profile story of bank robberies and thieves and I'm telling you the statutory provisions.
It seems that you don't want the JPS' dividend be earmarked for their recapitalization, but that's basic finance.
What is a big lie is the Govt theft story.
That's not what the law says it's happening.
It's not violation of the law but a secret plan of repayment of the SPS and recapitalization, otherwise it's a violation of the law and every action will be struck down.
So, no worries.
The Nationalization never happened. If that moron calls a Conservatorship "nationalization", is because he's an ignorant.
Nationalization is when there's a divestiture of title to private property and it never occurred, also known as Taking or eminent domain.
Conservatorship is for the rehabilitation of companies.
The U.S. Govt didn't "seize" the companies, but the FHFA named itself conservator of the enterprises and now it's the only one in control.
Also he ignores that the Charter already contemplated a low cost borrowing scheme from the Treasury before 2008 HERA.
That's just an email from an advisor to UST, leaked to the media to desestabilize FnF, making them have difficulties in accessing the debt markets, but we have other exemples at the time:
*July 10th, 2008, WSJ’s Editorial: “Investors are saying that a Bear Stearns-like run on the companies is a real possibility, and they're right”. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564782376340951.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
*July 10th, 2008, WSJ frontpage: “Administration Ramps Up Contingency Planning as Mortgage Giants Struggle. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121565255349741343.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
*July 9, 2008, William Poole, a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said that FnF were insolvent: “Congress ought to recognize that these firms are insolvent, that it is allowing these firms to continue to exist as bastions of privilege, financed by the taxpayer”. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=as4DEc5UFopA
* NYT reported on July 11, 2008, “U.S. weighs takeover of two mortgage giants”. “Senior Bush administration officials are considering a plan to have the government take over one or both of the companies and place them in a conservatorship if their problems worsen, people briefed about the plan said on Thursday”.”Under a conservatorship, the shares of Fannie and Freddie would be worth little or nothing”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/business/11fannie.html?pagewanted=all
This article cites “government officials”.
*July 21th, 2008, H.Paulson-hedge fund managers chat at Eton Park Capital Management headquarters (Bloomberg Market Magazine’s exclusive).