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.
May start red, but see green by end of day
Seems perfectly sensible, why are you all getting upset about it?
This is just whether she makes government pay costs.
The real deal is whether mandamus fails and Sweeney releases the docs -- everything else is an irrelevance.And the release is not delayed...
Literally laughable
lol your reading comprehension is a little adrift, no?
I gave you no advice, just noted that IF you don't think about why things happen, and what might happen in the future, THEN you will have trouble acting...
But, go ahead, bury your head in the sand, I do want to hear other people's ideas whether conflicting with mine or not lol
Captain, you are getting mixed up I think.
Sammans mandamus writ was denied, but the Government's writ of mandamus is under review...
The latter is the one stopping docs going to Fairholme and, hopefully, also the Appeals court
Lol, if you don't want to think through why events are happening, and what the future might hold as a consequence, good luck to you...
Makes crossing the road hard, tho lol
No judgement today -- they are waiting for the Sweeney docs.
Been saying this, following Ackman, for a month.
It is now very plausible the Appeals Court, for whatever reason (see below), is waiting for the further docs from Sweeney court.
SO:
First, the write of Mandamus needs to be rejected -- and god knows why that court is taking so long, it is a slam dunk.
Second, Fairholme needs to get docs (don't exclude any and all further gov shenanigans to stop this, but Sweeney is trying to put the hammer down to stop this -- I hope she gets to the point of sanctioning some government lawyers since we are at the point of a failure of professional ethics imho).
Third, Fairholme gets the docs to Appeals court.
Fourth, Appeals courts digest the docs and either writes a decision OR incorporates this FURTHER evidence into an already drafted decision.
I think we are deep into January before this all gets done, maybe February.
Is it worth the wait? I think it is. Appeals waiting for docs suggests they are going for remand with stringent instructions or reversal. Either will hugely help the settlement negotiations with Trump/Mnuchin Treasury -- PLUS Appeals will headline the import of the docs for the media, Trumpeting the Obama malefesance... Priming Trump to throw Obama under the bus to justify settlement which keeps shareholders whole... All IMHO
So, no Appeals ruling for a while...
I stand refuted lol
lol, I will accept my shares worth $23 in a RRR FNMA and THEN I hold those shares over next five years as they go to 40, 50.. etc
Get divorced before the settlement, quickie divorce, keep ur stock (give her the dog and house), then get a new girlfriend.
I am not a newbie, but let me say a couple of things...
First, no one is going to speak for you since in settlements the major holders get to sit at the settlement table. So Bill Ackman will be speaking -- for you or not, whether you like it or no.
Second, saying the warrants were "collateral" is just false. There was a contract and warrants were given as part of that contract by FNMA/FMCC to Treasury. That was part of the renumeration to Treasury for offering 187 liquidity.
Luckily for you, people with more sense will accept the warrants BUT also accept shares in a RRR FNMA worth $23-47 a piece... Lucky you.
20-25 dollars a share includes dilution -- but free with a bird in hand beats $50 in the bush and distant future
Where is the $250 in one year? LOL
Options are:
$23 in 1 year with warrants cos government settles -- and sharply increasing value over next 5 years
OR
$45 in 2025 (possibly later), ie 8 years, after we go through trial, appeal trial, and then appeal to Supreme Court -- and then ONLY IF YOU WIN IN SC!
I am with Ackman -- I take my $23 now thank you, rather than pie in the sky numbers on some contingent SC ruling.
Ackman wants to see a return on his money in his OWN lifetime -- let government keep warrants and they potentially settle.
Reject warrants and we are all in court till 2030 -- trial, appeal, appeal to Supreme Court...
Ackman has the right approach to my mind -- I take $23 a share now (with sharply increasing value over next 5 years), rather than $45 in 2030.
It is obvious it will be denied, but it is not obvious when the judges on that court will get to considering the issue and denying...
We are getting very close to holiday shut down, so this goes to January. Then how long for Appeals court to rule AFTER they get new docs?
I am praying we get Appeals court ruling before negotiations on a settlement start. Since that greatly increases leverage of plaintiffs.
In addition, lets hop the docs are really, really damning, since that gives Trump cover by allowing him to shame Obamaor at least his minions for their tawdry, illegal actions. Throwing Obama under the bus provides cover for settlement.
When Mandamus get denied it will be buy signal to a lot of folks cos then the dominoes fall in who knows what time frame...
Fairholme gets docs
Appeals court gets docs from Fairholme
THEN Appeals court uses those docs -- now why are they waiting on these docs that will further prove government lied about basis of NWS? I think there is a real chance they simply reverse, but at the least they remand with stringent instructions.
When that Appeals ruling comes down the SP will really move cos then the plaintiffs have hugely strengthened hand in negotiation with Trump admin -- and Trump admin can act by throwing Obama under the bus as at fault and reason for concessions (and that will be truth too).
How long it takes Appeals court to mull over docs I do not know. I think you have to buy on mandamus denial, cos who knows whether Appeals got their reversal written and want bullet-proof cover from the further docs...
Watched the Ackman video. Basically, Ackman says he always expected a settlement - and he has always implied accepting the warrants is a key element to incentivizing the government to settle.
Ackman suggested Trump admin gets this resolved in next 12 months.
Remember Ackman's projection of FNMA/FMCC under utility model, recap and with warrants, was $23-$47 depnding on G fee and PE.
I take a swift resolution and a base of $23 coming out of settlement -- do you want the money or do you want your heirs to have it? I don't wanna wait on various trials all way up to Supreme Court. After settlement, that $23-47 sp only gonna ramp from there as it builds value... Very positive
Rick, not obvious, no court news until after mandamus turned down and then docs get to Appeal court -- the Appeals Court is waiting for docs as Ackman said a month ago. No one on this board seems to have paid attention to Ackman...
Lamberth is getting blown away -- no way around it. Some people on here talking about "well crafted opinions" but the bottom line is that this judge accepted an absolutely outrageous reading of HERA. Furthermore, that reading was one that was made by the government and embodies the type of abusive government practice, and resultant encroachment, that many judges will be very keen to stop in its tracks on all kinds of fronts.
Gonna blow Lamberth and his "well crafted" outrage to the moon IMHO
Waiting for docs, like I said...
Mandamus rejected
Docs to Fairholme then Appeals Court
Appeals Court uses further docs to do what that they could not already do? IMHO they need docs to further support strong positive ruling -- very strong remand or complete reversal
We will see, but mandamus has to go down first, IMHO, you can forget getting a ruling before Appeals Court gets the docs
Curious how much of a bump SP gets on Mandamus rejection. I think that is a good time to buy, since I think it signals an Appeals Court ruling is then on deck...
Nobody, a positive Appeals Court ruling means that won't be true.
A positive Appeals court ruling means the Trump administration will have to give shareholders positive stake because otherwise they will not be able to resolve the situation any time soon due to ongoing litigation -- as Ackman laid out he is going to be in settlement talks very soon. lol
So you are flat out wrong as usual, all IMHO, potty
nobody, my retirement account doubled in last week -- how is that down the potty? LOL
Think about this: BBEFORE THE ELECTION a positive Appeals Court ruling had the potential to boost the stock, but the threat loomed of endless appeals by hostile admiration to Supreme Court.
NOW we have an administration actively seeking resolution -- so a positive Appeals Court ruling will give plaintiffs a big stick and leverage in resolution talks with the administration. MUCH BIGGER BOOST to sp, imho, when Appeals Court rules in January
So, my retirement account looks real good having doubled in the very short term --and fantastic prospects in medium term. I have been in the stock for years and I have the patience to wait out a proper settlement.
tcj, but the court has not ruled -- hence Ackman's surmise that they are waiting for the further docs...
It is a plausible idea and one that I think is worth thinking about.
On your view, how is the delay explained?
Assuming they are waiting for docs, the interesting question is WHY? I think they want further ammo for a bold move imho -- or possibly to quiet one of the judges who is dissenting.
lol - Wallison embarrassing himself
I guess if you are already the biggest joke in town, then you have nothing to lose?
One happy thought is what Wallison, Carney et al will look like once we get MORE DOCS? We are going to have very strong proof that the government lied about NWS -- so people will start asking if government lied about need for bailout. THEN we get to some very nasty truths about accounting etc.
Wallison has nothing to lose, cos he already lost all credibility
Appeals Court is waiting for docs -- that is what Ackman suggested a month ago.
SO first we need Mandamus writ thrown out, hope that will be soon since so obvious; THEN docs need to be turned over to Fairhome; THEN docs need to get to Appeals Court...
BUT you have to ask why Appeals Court is waiting for those docs giving more proof the government is lying on all manner of things. I think it suggests they are leaning to reversal or very strong instructions in a remand to Lamberth. Just IMHO
It looks like it take a while, we bee lucky to be done before Xmas -- but that leaves an explosive start to january... all good.
You really are spinning hard huh? A little more fact with the fiction might make it even slightly convincing?
Perry Appeal waiting for Docs -- don't know why people keep saying "will the judgement come today". Ackman suggested last week that it appears plausible that Perry Appeal Judges are waiting for the docs from Sweeney...
So, the Mandamus needs to get rejected, which it will, then Sweeney needs to compel. Docs go to plaintiffs who then need to petition to share with Perry Appeals...
THEN Perry Appeal judges need to look at docs and incorporate into judgement -- so this takes 6-8 weeks at least IMHO.
BUT the only reason Perry Appeal waits for these docs is to use them as a two by four to hit the government upside the head in reversal or remand with strong instructions.
So this is positive IMHO, but judgement will be AFTER docs get to Perry Appeal... or so Ackman speculated and it makes sense of the wait. (It also gives time for settlement etc.)
Perry Appeal waiting for docs -- did anyone see that Ackman suggested that is what is going on in his recent comments?
If that is the case, and it now seems likely to me (I do not know why this never occurred to me), then TWO quick points follow:
First, we have to wait for the Mandamus to be rejected in a couple of weeks, the docs be turned over AND the Appeals Court has to mull them over and digest them -- though that might just be integrating those docs with those the Court already has which point to Administration having lied over its motivation and intent in NWS.
That waiting will obviously be frustrating, but I think it is worth it cos...
Second, we need to ask WHY would Appeals Court want those docs? It might be that there is dissension and those docs are wanted to resolve disputes. BUT it seems that another situation is that those docs are required because the Court is mulling over either (I) a remand with very stringent instructions to Lamberth about what to do next informed by those docs or (II) an outright reversal where the Court takes those docs to be needed support for such a bold decision.
One needs to ask: why would the Appeals Court need to wait for the docs if they were going for a simple remand?
If the Appeals Court is indeed waiting for those docs, I think it bodes very positively for the decision they want those docs to inform and underpin IMHO.
Double coming BEFORE news from...
either
(A) Perry appeal coming in with a reversal or strong remand with instructions
and/or
(B) Indications Trump has appointed finance team sympathetic to release/settlement
and/or
(C) plan from Trump admin on real ease/settlement
As Ackman said, we got some bright prospects for resolution in early 2017 -- Trump will try to get lots done early while he still as clout and political capital...
Amen to that.
A lot of the haters, and those with dirty hands, will be gone Jan 20th.
Just need to keep Corker out, but why bring in such a problem ridden person when so many better, cleaner options available?
Sperling is gone, and his gang, that is more important.
The market obviously feared with Hillary having Sperling and the rest of the gang who engineered the Obama's admin debacle with NWS, then nothing good for GSE's under Clinton.
I would not hope for too much under Trump -- BUT at least he does not have to hide the scandal under the rug. Trump can let the courts release documents, expose the scandal and use it against the Dems...
So Trump may not continue to block a recap, and/or a settlement and/or a court judgement -- and certainly not anything like as hostile to all of those as Sperling and others who are about to be exposed in released documents.
I really hope Trump Justice department, and Hensaerling, go after Sperling, DeMarco et al
I think the government will appeal Sweeney or use some other legal delaying tactic -- they are all in on delay, so why stop now?
The reply will be that this will draw ire from Sweeney -- but so what? Sweeney is upset already and the people in charge of the debacle do not dare. Come Jan 1st they are gone -- the goal is delay till election day and beyond. They do not want ANYONE to see those docs...
But we see Monday, best, potty
Right, my sentiments exactly -- these folks will not want to influence an election and especially not this one...
A couple of big themes good for GSE's from President.
First, there is a theme throughout the piece that one cannot do radical reform and simply ignore what has worked in the past. See this:
Further progress requires recognising that America’s economy is an enormously complicated mechanism. As appealing as some more radical reforms can sound in the abstract—breaking up all the biggest banks or erecting prohibitively steep tariffs on imports—the economy is not an abstraction. It cannot simply be redesigned wholesale and put back together again without real consequences for real people.
Second, when housing reform is mentioned the point is explicit that rather than radical new structures, the things that have worked in the past must be utilized:
...the housing-finance system has not been reformed. That should be an argument for building on what we have already done, not undoing it. And those who should be rising in defence of further reform too often ignore the progress we have made, instead choosing to condemn the system as a whole. Americans should debate how best to build on these rules, but denying that progress leaves us more vulnerable, not less so.
Some very interesting statements!
Mr.Yank, and what about if the Appeals court reverses Lamberth's decision? Or sends the case back to the Lamberth court with strict conditions on how to move forward?
You do not think that will light the case up in the media and give a lot of impetus to the Government to settle?
I really, really am interested in seeing how the House of Representatives is going to react to evidence that the Obama Administration explicitly discussed using FNMA/FMCC revenues to pay for Obamacare, ACA etc. when the Congress would not sanction funds for that.
Would Hensaerling be interesting in hearings on THAT? Settlement would a lot better than that...
Stinky, why would they do that?
The Republicans would use it as ammo, and Obama won't give Trump that weapon.
Maybe settlement after election.
I expect appeal judgement after the election too.
You mean a new post...
I heard he got a job at Petsmart just so he could groom Ginsburg's wife's cat -- THAT is dedication to the cause. KTF (...better: take a pill)
TH717 guy calling Bradford crazy? Like the pot calling the kettle black.
And apparently a bunch of bozo's celebrating on a few message boards if we win in court will put the cause back lol
Bonkers. Really bonkers.
I also do not believe his accusations about Bradford being behind various posters.