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.
if Treasury and FHFA knew that Fannie and Freddie’s post-conservatorship losses were artificial, they also knew those non-cash losses would reverse at some point.
jtimothyhoward
So FHFA Conservator Ed Demarco knew about FnF returning to profitability at some stage. It is sad that FHFA Conservator Ed committed massive corporate fraud by signing NWS just before FnF returning to profitability.
"Professional knowledgeable anchor from the most respected stock market news network is trained to deal with hostile guests on the show. Topic was GSE rental business."
Which should be big news?
Biggest historical Accounting scandal during Ob administration,
Biggest historical theft by the conservator during Ob administration,
Big historical lies during Ob administration.
or
GSE rental business financing Mega corporations transforming nation into renter nation from owner nation.
Main stream financial media are as complicit in the FnF heist as the people who committed it. Few years at such networks does not make any body Professional knowledgeable anchor. But guests were Professional knowledgeable experts with decades of impeccable integrity.
As long as FnF are traded on unregulated OTC exchanges, the PPS does not reflect free market price. The prices can be easily manipulated by traders in collusion with others.
This is the main reason why Ed delisted FnF from NYSE.
Now Ed is getting paid by the same people whom he helped while in in charge of conservatorship.
Most Judges are part of deep state bureaucracy.
Most of these people start as bureaucrats and then become Judges.
MBA is basically lobbying association and MBA office holders are lobbyists.
Foxes are foxes by whatever name you call them.
Lobbyists stink by whatever name you call them.
So is Stevens.
The correct narrative should be the whole financial system was devastated state. But FnF were in a relatively good shape and well prepared to meet their financial obligations.
It is really very risky to short FnF for maximum gain of $2.5 and unlimited risk. It is not worth shorting the stocks with such a adverse asymmetrical reward vs risk ratios.
FnF became the most profitable and well managed companies in the world despite bureaucratic self dealings, collusions and conspiracies undermining them for last 10 years.
With real estate expert DJT and housing finance expert Mnuchin it is foolish to expect continuation of previous administration policies.
along has become very active discouraging longs.
Something good must be going to happen for longs.
Great advise.
Agree with very reasonable assessment.
Probably Judge G fits well in deep state bureaucracy not in judiciary.
There are many connected people who shorted FnF based on these insider information made big money. Public needs to know names of these people.
Steve Hilton currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC)
"The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton (Sundays at 9PM/ET)".
Hilton features a segment called “SwampWatch”, which provides opinion and analysis about the agencies, industries, and political groups that are affecting President Trump’s pledge to “drain the swamp.”
http://www.foxnews.com/person/h/steve-hilton.html
It is a good idea for all of us to tweet Steve to feature “SwampWatch” on 2008 crisis, fake FnF conservatorship, lawless NWS, and FnF shareholders saga.
https://twitter.com/SteveHiltonx
Please take time tweet Steve urging him to take look at FnF shareholders saga.
lumpina,
The context was the problems described by "along" associated with buying and selling OTC shares.
along4zride,
Simple questions for you.
When you sell short OTC shares, will you not have the same problems when you want to buy OTC shares to cover the short position?
What is the difference between sell short & Buy to cover compared to Buy long and sell.
If buying and selling OTC shares is problematic, then why are trading in the OTC market?
Thanks, Great crapomercial on OTC stocks.
Great million dollar idea to short the shares and make more money.
Any takers?
What about BO?
This is BO's legacy.
As Wallstreet President, BO was part of Wall Street establishment that just bet against anything that is American. BO eschewed party ideologies when it came to betting against America or when it came to betting against FnF.
Obama called on Congress to wind down the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because Big Banks discriminated against or preyed upon or treated wrongly the buyers. It is unfortunate that as President BO did not know the difference between purely for profit Big Banks and FnF created for mainly for public policy purposes. US economy and US workers paid heavy price for these policies.
----------------------------------
Phoenix Speech:
"And that’s why we had the Justice Department fight for buyers who were discriminated against or preyed upon, and we won a settlement that awarded more money to victims in one year than in the previous 23 years combined. (Applause.) That’s why we worked with states to force big banks to repay more than $50 billion to more than 1.5 million borrowers who had been treated wrongly -- and that was the largest lending settlement in history. (Applause.)
And that’s why I’ve called on Congress to wind down the government-backed companies known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
Donotunderstand,
Thanks, I think we agree on many common points and at the same time we think differently.
Donotunderstand,
You commented that-
"Do you think your bias is showing a bit - If they go for us longs they are using law facts common sense - If they go against us they are inventing interpretations - I can not agree"
You keep on missing the point and seem to be totally oblivious of it. Also you are missing simple fact that in any arguments or discussions there are differing views or opinions. In such situations does it make any sense to say that the opposing views are biased without any substantiations and so ones own views are unbiased and correct? I did not make any comments on your views, so why do you say that I do not seem to understand your points?
Instead of substantiating your comments that my views are biased or unreasonable, you go on to express your own views which somehow you feel are unbiased. You seem to agree with my points but then say my views show a bias.
You are welcome to express your views along with relevant facts. But when you say other's views are biased or unreasonable then you need to substantiate your criticism. Also you need to maintain the context in the same thread of discussion.
Please read about "attacking a straw man" fallacy:
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Donotunderstand,
You seem to be missing the point by Billion miles and seem to have put on blinders.
Can you please tell us how these views are biased or baseless after reading below points.
1. So far all the court rulings are just based on judicial bar and not based on merit of the case. This is called throttling the justice system if it were to happen elsewhere with all the MSM would be making it a big news. Defendants have consistently filed inconsistent arguments and some officials have given false deposition. The case has taken so many years without any resolution. There is total lack of openness, lack of transparency and every attempt to delay and drag.
2. USCA-DC is the most important highest court after SCOTUS. The minority opinion Judge Brown eloquently describes this as something that can only happen in a Banana republic. This minority opinion ruling is more than 30 pages and contains much more critical details. Please read the opinion. In addition USCA-DC revised its earlier ruling on something that was not even part of plaintiff's appeal filing.
3. If you read Judge Lamberth's ruling, surely he is not pleased with NWS, points to congress for making such laws and clearly hints at constitutional issues with HERA.
4. If one goes by USCFC Judge Sweeney, we have heard and read many comments critical of defendants.
5. Even if you go by FHFA Conservator's own statements in congressional hearing, Mel Watt makes it clear that NWS has trumped US laws. He has expressed great concerns about NWS putting taxpayers at great risk and ready to act alone if not something is done about it.
5. Numerous mortgage finance experts, numerous legal experts, ex-officials and legal experts who wrote HERA have expressed dismay at the conduct of defenddants. Mark Calabria (chief economist for Vice President Mike Pence) has stated that Hank and Ed violated HERA and should face the Judge.
rek,
Thanks, yes, this is an example of broad and blanket anti-Injunction law.
But "Anti-Injunction Act of 1793" curtails the power of federal Gov against State Govs whereas anti-Injunction provisions in HERA bestow limitless
powers on FHFA conservator and makes FHFA conservator an autocrat.
"Anti-Injunction Act of 1793" supports principles of checks and balances of powers between state and federal Govs whereas anti-Injunction provisions in HERA does exact opposite.
rek,
"Anti-Injunction Act of 1793" protects State's rights from Federal courts. So it not relevant in FnF context.
"A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."
rek,
For me it looks very simple. "broad and blanket" anti-injunction provisions violate principles of separation of powers in any democratic system.
"What is your basis for this statement? "
SCOTUS has allowed deviations only in exceptional situations.
"Broad and blanket" do not count as exceptions.
rek,
Thanks for your help to understand the legal nuances.
Our best bet would be to try everything possible from every possible angle and in as many different courts as possible. Somewhere FnF shareholders will find a Judge who will rule based on laws and facts using common sense and not just based on invented interpretations.
How can the word "may" have very different meanings in HERA? Defendants wants to interpret "may" as mandatory where ever it is convenient and optional where ever it is not convenient because using optional consistently violates the constitution.
Common sense interpretation of HERA and conservatorship based FIRREA would have solved these cases long time back without referring to constitution.
The Judges appointed and promoted through political process carry all the political baggage with them. And in FnF cases it is very blatantly visible. Judges have gone to extraordinary lengths to deny basic rights of FnF shareholders.
Most probably along4zride is a proxy for somebody like fellow travelers or funds specializing short derivatives. These people first predict and then make it happen to gain respectability. It is very easy to manipulate OTC stocks with few millions.
We have seen it happen many times.
Rek, Thanks.
Congress has not put or can not put any jurisdictional bar any federal courts to decide on constitutionality of any congressional laws or provisions.
If any federal court decides that HERA provisions are unconstitutional then it may affect broad and blanket anti-injunctions provisions. Courts generally consider broad and blanket anti-injunction provisions as unconstitutional.
from the wiki article.
Limits:
Congress may not strip the U.S. Supreme Court of jurisdiction over those cases that fall under the Court's original jurisdiction defined in the U.S. Constitution. Congress can limit only the appellate jurisdiction of the Court.
---------------
It appears that Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the courts that it creates but not of those that are created by the constitution - that is SCOTUS. Congress can not create unconstitutional laws or conflicting laws and then put jurisdictional bar on SCOTUS. That is why it was important for the plaintiffs to pursue constitutional route to invalidate HERA provisions.
More ever all federal courts are bound by the applicable constitutional case laws that override congressional laws.
Basically congress can not defeat the Constitutional principles of checks and balances through jurisdictional limits.
Has any court ruled on constitutionality of unconditional Judicial bar or unconditional anti-injunction provisions?
Do you any constitutional reference or case laws?
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."
—Chief Justice John Marshall
"Just to be clear...judicial bars were not "invented". They are in the Constitution. "
Rek,
Thanks,
1. Can you please give references in the Constitution?
2. Where it says judicial bars are valid even when constitution and other laws are violated, ignored or rewritten by the independent Gov agencies?
3. Where how some one gets immunity from judicial review by just entering in to agreements with such independent Gov agencies?
When someone bets in a rigged system, there is a good chance to win the bets. But the chances start diminishing as people become familiar with the system.
BTW shorting 9K shares is more of symbolic than of any significance.
The upside is limited to 2k to 3k but the downside is unlimited.
Expect shorts popping up to say something different to depress the PPS..
along4zride,
What happened with prediction?
Can you please tell us what can not done with more than $4T/year ($1T debt/year)?
Agree on internet sales tax.
We also need export incentives and import tax on all products and services like all other countries.
Thanks for your views.
Thanks, On this board we do not have to agree with each other all the time.
At the same time we should not get in to straw man arguments.
The questions needs to be asked in proper context.
rekcusdo,
It is very simple to explain the problem.
FHFA/HERA were modeled exactly on the basis of FDIC/FIRREA.
Then why FnF are being treated differently?
Then why would highly experienced Judge Brown severely criticize the lawless conduct of FHFA?
Is there any example any where in the world that would be comparable to banana republic FHFA conservatorship?
There are no acturial or mathematical solutions to health care through health insurance without ever increasing health insurance premiums.
Federal Gov should stop meddling in health care business. Let States, counties, cities, communities handle health care within their means.
Donotunderstand,
Asking right questions is very important. I do not want to waste my quota of allowed messages.
To ask right questions you need to do read the message correctly and do some home work. Other wise you will end up asking questions that make no sense.
So please expect "ignored" if right questions are not asked in right context.