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.
Gov took 11B loss with investment with GM.
Now GM does not owe anything to Gov.
MBA thieves come up with all sorts of excuses.
rek,
Thanks, you said it about taking claims.
Do not the taking claims depend on shareholder rights to economic value attached to the shares?
If taking claims arise on certain date, then either shareholder before the date or shareholder after the date have the that rights to taking claims and standing.
rek,
If the rights depend on date of purchase, then can you please tell us how it works in below situations.
When seller sells shares to secondary buyer:
Will seller keeps certain rights and then transfers only remaining rights?
If yes, then what are those rights that remain with seller?
If no, then what happens to the rights that are not conveyed to secondary buyer?
What are the rights that remain with shares through successive secondary sales and transfers?
To protect taxpayers from private gains and public losses, FHFA conservator should include MBA member banks, cash rich companies like Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, facebooks... in NWS amendment.
With this taxpayers will never have to worry about debt ceiling.
FHFA conservator should a send a signal to the market that all cash rich companies should pay tributes to FHFA conservator, otherwise it would be a windfall for Wall Street investors.
Nobody can challenge FHFA conservator when FHFA does this for the benefit of the agency or enterprises.
rek,
At what events does the conveyance of full value of contractual rights start declining (that is less than full value of contractual rights)?
In 2008 Conservator announced that all shareholders maintain full economic value in the shares.
After that Conservator (Mel Watt) said that he does not lose sleep over shareholders rights.
At the time NWS was announced, conservator did not announce anything about shareholder rights.
So how does one start recognize loss in value of contractual rights?
rek,
You are missing the point. Please go through messages.
I was trying to let you understand the context.
rek,
Let us assume that Tsy and FHFA conservator acted independent of each other in signing NWS. Tsy was aware of ensuing FnF golden age and that was insider information and not public information. So tsy used insider information to gain advantage and harm other shareholders by NWS agreement. This is clear violation of SEC insider trading regulations. If FHFA conservator knew this information, it is far worse than insider trading.
along4zride,
Remember what your uncle Warren said long time back,
“Fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”
It is the time to be greedy when others are fearful.
If Ugliotti is prosecuted for perjury what will happen to Gov defense?
We will have one set of DOJ attorneys prosecuting witness harming the same case that the other set of DOJ attorneys are defending. It is a conflict of interest for DOJ. So there is a need special counsel to investigate Fanniegate.
rek,
You missed the obvious context.
Constitution does not specifically mention shareholders rights.
Shareholders rights are part of individual rights.
Deep state judges are more politically and ideologically motivated than bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are just trying to help big businesses.
If logic and reasons are used, then no one can explain why 2008 crisis happened or why it was not prevented. Same thing also applies to FnF conservatorship and NWS.
rek,
None of these points are made up things.
These are in the plaintiffs complaints filed under constitution.
May be the context in which these points are raised is not clear to you.
I had pasted URLs in one of the reply to you. Please read.
Rumple,
I agree with you. But we also need to repeat the truth, otherwise truth becomes distorted and irrelevant.
rek,
How about shareholder rights under constitution?
Can FHFA/Tsy use 4617(f) as a all in one defense against complaints filed under constitution?
Complaints under constitution not only challenge 4617(f) but HERA itself.
Anti-injunction provisions have been challenged under
1. Separation of powers,
2. Nondelegation Doctrine to FHFA as US as well as private authority,
3. Constitutional system of limited and divided government authority,
4. unchecked authority
5. lack of an intelligible principles to guide FHFA combined with severe restrictions on judicial review
Below is the list of violations against which injunction have been sought.
1. Violation of the President’s Constitutional Removal Authority
2. Violation of the Separation of Powers
3. Violation of the Appointments Clause
4. Violation of the Nondelegation Doctrine
5. Violation of the Private Nondelegation Doctrine
Even if any one these works, then FHFA conservatorship and 4617(f) is gone for good. If these do not work then no individual rights are safe and so even billionaires will have to start worrying.
along4zride,
That is HUD-Sy Carson saying that. Before FHFA, OFHEO was a agency under HUD. How is that making you LOL?
You should be worried about losing obamacare as well as you short bet.
Clark6290,
Below is the definition of Realist:
1. a person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to deal with it accordingly.
2. an artist or writer whose style is characterized by the representation of people or things as they actually are.
How is the eternal pessimistic persona fits in to this definition?
“He should not send a signal to the market that recap and release is a possibility, because that would be a windfall for Wall Street investors,” Stevens said.
Stevens is the most opportunistic chief lobbyist from MBA. Stevens once notoriously said "rule of law is old and worn out" and how does it squares with mission statement of financial institutions he represents.
How is the heist from private shareholders is in any way better than returning the companies to their rightful owners?
It is so simple.
They post when they are right.
They hide When they are wrong.
Overall, longs have made more money since 2009.
"I would disagree with this statement. I believe Conservatorship was necessary, and without it, we would have likely had further loss of our mortgage stability. However, there is really no way to know for sure what would have happened, because what happened is what happened. "
rek,
Yes, there is way of knowing what would have happened. That is why companies and Gov agencies maintain records. That is how white collar crimes are investigated. Discovery is all about finding out.
There is no excuse for what happened. It was pure abuse of Gov authority for private gains of favored ones at the cost of common people and small businesses.
You should read answer for below question
"On September 7, 2008, did the Regulated Entities meet the grounds for discretionary appointment of conservator or receiver? "
https://th717.wordpress.com/2017/08/01/12-u-s-code-%c2%a7-4617a3a-l-as-it-relates-to-the-regulated-entities/
Conservatorship and SPAPA were never needed. Hank wanted to use his authority to settle the scores with his adversaries. He could settle scores with like of LHMN, BS, WM, ML... but not with FnF. The credit power of Tsy/fed and other banks was used to destroy these FIs.
Hank/Ben abused credit power of Tsy/Fed to put FnF under Conservatorship by denying statutory Tsy/Fed credit lines to FnF unless FnF BOD agreed for conservatorship.
The simple fact that FnF were able to become profitable within a period 2-3 years (2012) and pay back $270B and can have more than $200B capital within 6 years (2018) proves that. At the time of conservatorship FnF had $98B core capital. So FnF have generated profit of about $230B in 9 years. That is about $25B per year in last 9 years.
It is time to move FHFA under HUD. Earlier OHFEO was a agency under HUD.
It was a great mistake involve Tsy in FHFA Conservatorship
Tsy and Fed only work big banks not for common people.
rek,
Moelis seems to have right connections and right ideas.
As with any plans, Moelis plans needs to be corrected based on interactions with various stakeholders. My guess is, this has very high chances of success if plans are corrected realistically.
In a corrupt wall street financial world, there is well established practice to screw the common shareholders by massive dilutions and give the control to debt holders. But this may not work with FnF, because FnF were never insolvent or never bankrupt and never needed FHFA conservatorship and Gov bailout. If these cases go to trial, plaintiffs will prove these facts and that is why FHFA/Tsy are trying so hard to avoid court trials.
Currently FnF have almost fulfilled their obligations under original SPSPA agreement. If one goes by the original SPSPA agreement, and end the conservatorship, then FnF will be left with more than $200B core capital. There is no need to raise more capital and FnF do not need any Tsy help.
FnF can easily extinguish all Jr.Preferreds by paying off $35B. That is one reason why Mel confidently declared that he is ready to dance alone. FHFA or FnF never needed help of pro-big-bank Tsy. Moelis plans need to reflect this reality.
Only question is about Gov warrants. Gov should buy back warrants using the same formula that was used for wall street banks like GS, BAC etc., in the best interest of all.
Sad, the Wallstreetsters shafted small community banks with lies. After this many community banks went bankrupt with loss of capital. Then big banks bought these small banks for pennies with the help of FDIC.
This is how Wallstreetsters bankrupt other companies and then buy them for pennies, grow and make more more money.
Navy, good catch.
There are many on this board who pretend to be longs and engage in subtle misinformation. Being long does not entitle one to disparage positive news or positive sentiments.
Good bearish opinions and analysis based on true facts are most welcome. But we only see opinions and no analysis or facts.
duckdynasty,
In any democratic system that is how it works whether you call it lobbying or something else. For example election campaigns are about lobbying with electorate, so should there be ban on election campaigns?
If some one does not like lobbying they have the choice of avoiding it or quit the public life and become private persons.
Is it ok for financial establishment to lobby anyway they like and then it is not ok for FnF to lobby?
Alternatively look at what has happened with dictatorial FHFA conservatorship. There is no public accountability, no openness, no transparency, no constitutional rights, no checks and balances, no divided Gov to prevent abuse of authority, no protection of individual rights, no rule of law, no judicial reviews.
FHFA conservatorship has become a super massive dark black hole, it consumes everything and even not a ray of light (or ray of hope) comes out of it.
"He also knew Menuchin as well and said that he would do whatever the lobbyists wanted done."
duckdynasty,
That is how it works mostly in any known system. "Lobbyists" is very general term and it depends on whether it is for good cause or bad cause.
In FnF case, we have many stakeholders. So also we have many lobbying groups. The lobbying group representing FnF shareholders and small community banks is the most powerless group compared with most powerful lobbying groups like MBA that represent financial establishment. This is very much evident by looking at who gets opportunities to be heard in congressional hearings and who have representations in Congress, Tsy, Fed and FHFA.
During many previous administrations, lobbying groups representing financial establishment caused 2008 crisis, HERA, conservatorship, and NWS leading to current Conservatorship lawless mess and status quo.
Currently it looks like, DJT administration is making honest efforts in trying to resolve FnF consevatorship and this may help FnF shareholders and small community banks.
--------------------------------
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/043015/why-lobbying-legal-and-important-us.asp
Lobbying is often misinterpreted or criticized as bribery, which it is not. Lobbying is a practice performed by either individuals or organizations whereby public campaigns (which are legally registered with the government) are undertaken to pressure governments into specific public policy actions. The legality of lobbying comes from the Constitution and from our participatory democracy.
duckdynasty,
Thanks, very interesting and true fact.
"What mattered was whether the judge followed the law or not."
Inquisitively Googled "Deep State judges", found some interesting article
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2017/01/02/deep-state-control-of-the-american-courts-and-judiciary/
All those who were shaken by District and Appeals court rulings, may find some answers to their questions on how judicial system works (or more correctly does not work) for common people.
"HERA doesn't need to define it. It will be based on the reasonable person test, as it has always been done. "
Perry appeals court did not use "reasonable person test" or reasonable meaning of "conservator".
Perry appeals court ruled that HERA conservator is not ordinary State law or common law conservator and at the same time did not clarify what HERA conservator can do and can not do.
Deep state judges have made it very complicated for all.
"Based on your statement, Watt could cancel all outstanding shares of the GSEs without any compensation, divert the dividend payment into his own bank account, murder the BOD, and poop on the White House's doorsteps...as long as it is in the name of preserving and conserving the GSEs."
Yes that is correct. This is how plaintiffs are going to argue against HERA in courts. HERA does not define what is in the best interest of FHFA or GSEs.
Incidentally FHFA conservator can do any of these things if it is in the best interest of FHFA or GSEs because Congress does not provide any meaningful directives in HERA or in any other laws required under non- delegation doctrine.
You need to read amenended Rop and Bhatti filings (Actions under the Consitution)
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Rop/17-cv-00497-0017.pdf
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Bhatti/17-cv-02185-0027.pdf
"Watt can not cancel the NWS without a court order or the Treasury's agreement."
rek,
You know better than this. NWS is not a law, it is a private contract agreement. Also NWS has violated many US and State laws and legal validity is under litigation. Any party to private contract agreement can cancel agreement as per the contract agreement or contract laws.
In case of FHFA conservatorship, HERA authorizes conservator to do anything to preserve and conserve and courts can not do anything about it. Tsy also agrees with this.
It is most improbable that there is any undue pressure on Mel from lawmakers. Lawmakers always write to Gov agencies.
Mel probably was under pressure from previous administration, because of party politics and Obama connections. Reps did not vote for Mel during Senate confirmation, so Mel owes them not much. Knowing trading activities of cker/wner Mel may not give much importance what these people say.
However there may be pressure on Mnuchin, because administration needs senator's votes.
Tsy has to play its role and conservator has to play its role according to their responsibilities to resolve this issue.
Probably there are some subtleties involved in this and some public dance show is required. Each agency head is supposed to work in the best interest of their respective agencies.
For Tsysy Mnuchin, it is improper to fore go payments to his Gov agency as per the agreements with private companies FnF.
So it is the responsibility of the Conservator to renegotiate the agreement or tell the other party to take a hike by canceling the NWS unilaterally. That is what Mel did by saying that he has the authority and he can dance alone if required.
Let us see how the dance show goes on and who wins.
Is it not plain stupidity to expect Congress to come up with a solution in search of a problem that does exist? Or Is it that Mel may be waiting for 2018 when FnF will go bankrupt?
So far no one has come up with any viable alternatives. This is a big mess created by the FHFA acting under the direction of Hank/Ben/Tim/Obama. Now FHFA can solve it with more than willing help from DJT/Mnuchin/Carson/DOJ.
Instead of coming up with a solution, few with known short derivative positions keep on insisting that let conservatorship and NWS continue so as to keep the pressure on Congress even after 9 years. Their hope is in 2018 FnF will go bankrupt and make big money on derivatives.
If Mel Watt can not handle the responsibility of Conservatorship then he should go. At least Ed had the audacity to defy Obama and Tim in public policy matters when working as a acting director. What sort of a courage we have seen from Mel when it comes to doing the right things for all stakeholders?
So far FHFA has only shown eagerness to please short traders, lobbyists and crooks who are betting against American people.
OB as a constitutional law scholar was the worst of all in ignoring law and harming FnF. Other than racial heritage and good talking, he did not show anything much.
People saw so much potential and hope in him but he turned out to be another Chicago politician.
Read between the lines.
Only big investors do that and not small investors. Big investors should only buy low and sell high. Small investors should only buy high and sell low.
Considering the continuation of same lawless conservatorship and NWS, and continuation of the same false and misleading FHFA court filings it is time to let Mel Watt go.
Mel Watt seems to be continuing the lawless legacies of Hank, Ben, Tim, Obama, EdDemarco and fellow travelers and does not fit in the current DJT administration.
As a law professional Mel Watt very well knows that conservatorship and NWS are clearly in violation of Constitution (and so HERA also). Mel Watt has also said that laws have been trumped, and conservator's duty is to preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity, in many Congressional hearing. But Mel has chosen not to correct it.
Almost 2 years back Mel sounded alarm about precarious state of FnF in Bipartisan Policy Center interview. But this was during lawless bummer administration which wanted to handover FnF businesses to big banks. Now DJT administration wants to break up big banks, bring back Glass-Steagall regulations, and end Gov control of FnF.
There is no way FHFA can make Courts to dismiss shareholder Cases filed under constitutional violations. Once these cases go to trial, FHFA officials will be sitting ducks. DOJ knows this very well and it is reflected in Berk's comments.
You should come up with catchy name.
How about "FHFA Conservatorship Wall of Shame"
Realistic means fair analysis based on true facts and laws.
Also openness, transparency, honest disclosures about conflict of interest are necessary.
Both bearish and bullish traders are also realistic as long they are honest with facts, laws and disclosures.
streamer04,
If private entities were to do the same things as FHFA conservator and Fellow travelers in tsy then how those things would have been described by the DOJ and Courts?
What would have happened to these private entities?
By the way FHFA conservator has claimed many times that it is a private entity in many court cases?
How many versions of the same laws we have, when it comes FHFA conservators?