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.
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.
***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).
You can't say that he's been neither right nor wrong in his Investment Case, until we know the final resolution.
You can't say that about anyone, so you don't even know what your are talking about. You are just a guy raving on the internet.
Carlos is our maestro. The plaintiffs aren't fighting for the shareholders' rights. They are conspiring to rip-off the shareholders. This is why they request only a $29 billion refund and don't challenge the warrant.
Have a look at the latest opinion of our maestro on Twitter about the corrupt plaintiffs:
Reply to the corrupt plaintiff Fisher's assertion that the warrant isn't a collateral for the SPS repayment. He wants it to negotiate.
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) March 2, 2021
He loves to be in the spotlight. Sweeney sent lead Fairholme to Appellate Ct. He requested to go too w/ Amicus briefs.#Fanniegate @TheJusticeDept pic.twitter.com/3qdrineZTX
FnF have nothing to do with Affordable Housing. They purchase loans from the banks. That's all they do. The same loan can be placed in the banks's balance sheets. Are you going to say that the banks have also something to do with Affordable Housing?
You have discovered that a mortgage makes a home purchase more affordable. Congrats!
Dick Bove is a deranged person.
This isn't about "capital structure" but "conservatorship", where the dividend is suspended for their recapitalization.
Basic Finance and also corroborated in the Law.
The JPS holders don't like it and they want to rip-off the shareholders. Not under my watch.
Carlos is our lighthouse. If you have internet access, you can download the FHEFSSA amended by HERA, the Charter and the FHFA's 2011 Final Rule, which is what the corrupt plaintiffs haven't done.
The current capital structure is fixed with the law, that states that the Capital distributions (like dividends) are restricted when undercapitalized for their recapitalization, with the exception of repaying the SPS.
The lawsuits they brought up are flawed. They request a small refund because they seek stock offerings for the hedge fund managers John Paulson, Berkowitz, Pagliara, etc.
The day that you mention one statutory provision, we will give you a gift.
You only reply with "talk to a lawyer" and now "only with internet access you can disprove his baseless claims", but still, not even one statutory provision laid out to challenge his investment case.
This is not about "we appreciate their efforts", this is about corrupt plaintiffs filing flawed lawsuits, with the objective to rip-off the shareholders.
You are serving the plaintiff Bryndon Fisher on the internet message boards.
The plaintiff Bryndon Fisher has just had his due response in one of his comments.
No, that doesn't explain the late day pop.
It says that the Govt will sell out its SPS and it's only possible after converting them for common stocks. That's bad news and illegal.
Are you new here? Read #Fanniegate for daily in-depth analysis.
"Rule of Law Guy" is a deranged person that doesn't even write the powers of the conservator right.
We don't know what the Scotus' mandate will be about and he's already talking about the plaintiff's motion for SJ after that mandate.
What if the mandate is simply strike all the actions taken by the conservator and the UST?
My view is that the Administration and the FHFA will reverse all their actions and they will unveil a lawful resolution before the Supreme Court's ruling, that will be used to corroborate the action just taken.
This is not a market where you can bargain. You have to look it up in the statutory provisions. The prevailing rate on SPS is the original low cost funding with the purchases of obligations.
Then, more than $110 billion due, plus SPS repaid.
The plaintiffs only challenge in Scotus the legality of the NWS.
So, it's legal and the case is closed. The illegal actions are others that haven't been brought up by the corrupt plaintiffs, because they seek a settlement to share the booty with the UST and stock offerings.
***BOMBSHELL***THE THIRD AMENDMENT (NWS) NOW BEFORE SCOTUS,IS LAWFUL. Because we have two eyes. We the shareholders must organize and mobilize against the corrupt plaintiffs. They brought up a phony case to Scotus that doesn't tackle the multiple unlawful acts by the conservator under the Law. Enough is enough!
THE 3rd AMENDMENT (NWS) IS LAWFUL, BECAUSE WE HAVE 2 EYES
— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) February 20, 2021
HERA incorporated in the Charter(l)authority of UST to purchase UNLIMITED yield obligations SPS, IN ADDITION to the prevailing(c)low cost UST backstop(Charter's dynamics)
So,the Secret Plan👇(fast speed)#Fanniegate @Scotus https://t.co/TEXxPSSZRP pic.twitter.com/3GaYu9NNBz
I'm beginning to think that the article might be pretty close.
FnF don't provide data of refinancings and overall liquidity provided to the mortgage market in the 4Q, so you have to estimate it.
For FMCC I've taken the liquidity provided to the mortgage market in the 3Q, $361.6 billion. Later I assume that the single familiy refinance borrowers are 60.7%, because that's their statistic in number of borrowers. The 3Q and the 4Q were very strong quarters of refinancings and similar. Then, $147 billion worth of refinancings in two months.
For FNMA, I've taken the data of $948 billion Single-family refinances in 2020. Taking into account that the boom in refinancings occurred in the 2H, I assume that it was $290 billion in the 4Q. Then, $193b for two months.
Total = $340 billion, less the mortgages that don't qualify for the fee (below $125,000). Let's assume that the total was $300 billion and the article says $350 billion worth of adverse market qualified refinance mortgages.
Anyway, where's the money? $860 mll of income should have been recorded for the month of December in the quarterly earnings report and I don't have the impression that it was recorded.
Also, the management is silent about this new Adverse Market Refinance Fee. They should have mentioned something in the SEC filing and the conference call.
This is evidence that the conservatorship is a state to misrepresent their financial condition, so that the stocks trade rock bottom.
That article is wrong. My estimation based on the recent earnings report, is that FnF refinanced $190 billion worth of mortgages in the last three months of 2020.
Then, for the months of December and January, presumably they've refinanced $127 billion, at a 0.5% fee, it's $634 million, assuming that all the borrowers qualify, when that's not true because the mortgages below $120,000 don't qualify for this fee. Whereas the article claims that FnF earned $1.75 billion in adverse market fees in these two months.
Interesting comment posted on the FHFA's website regarding its proposed rule "living wills" and the request of input.
https://www.fhfa.gov//SupervisionRegulation/Rules/Pages/Comment-Detail.aspx?CommentId=15749