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.
I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean, but it sounds like something i’ll probably disagree with. Lol
When Trump tells him what to do.
Agree fully, unfortunately.
It makes more sense if you combine that statement with another one I made in that post...
“The American public lets Presidents get away with it because they are too afraid to do anything about it beyond making scathing youtube videos.”
The government does indeed work for the American public. But they figured out many years ago that the American public rarely has teeth.
Agree with this sentiment.
“Well the fact that there is no transparency after a decade, is likely a sign of some wrongdoing given the high stakes.”
Lack of transparency is hardly a new issue. No President has been very transparent from Nixon’s attempt to hide Watergate to Trump not releasing his taxes and every President in-between.
The American public lets Presidents get away with it because they are too afraid to do anything about it beyond making scathing youtube videos.
While I won’t agree that the lack of transparency is an admission of some sort of guilt (as this would defy the ideology behind the 5th Amendment), I do agree that it seems odd to me that the government works for the American people and yet the American people are kept so securely in the dark about everything.
Didn’t you hear him? Because its BIG NEWS! :)
Because there is nothing to suss out.
Without evidence, all we can do is guess about what went down.
There are dozens of explanations as to why the board might have gone along with conservatorship that don’t jump to extreme of duress and physical threats.
Honestly, I could say that the BOD was replaced with alien bodysnatchers and have the same amount of “evidence” as those proclaiming duress.
Without any kind of “lead” here, this is just talk to talk and will in no way help figure out next steps to end the NWS.
“I am a Trump supporter but do not like what his administration is doing (or not doing) regarding the GSE's.”
Agreed. Even though I was never a Trump supporter, I was not a Clinton supporter either...and just want a president who will do what’s right for the GSEs.
“You are a brilliant guy, but you often let your political bias taint your views, IMHO.”
Thank you for the compliment! I don’t consider my bias political, as I don’t actually adhere to either political party. I do agree I have a logical and legal bias, however. If it doesn’t make sense to me or is clearly illegal, I’m against it.
Honestly, if Clinton were in office right now, I can promise you my posts would look identical.
Lol. If anyone were to prosecute someone based on the HUGE amount of speculation in this thread, the judge would issue a directed verdict to reverse that ridiculousness.
Thats a lot of nice speculation.
My theory is that it was the illuminati.
“Do the same laws and fundamentals apply to US Agency Heads as McDonalds' minimum wage earning managers and cashiers”
Of course they do. US Agency Heads are not above the law!!!!!!
“Then why do you call the NWS illegal?”
Because it is. The basic fundamental laws of contract law were violated by the NWS. Im not talking about some loophole or hardly known law here. The basic ideology of mutual consideration was not even upheld. A man who claims to be an expert in contracts should know that.
“That is literally for the courts to decide, not Trump or you or me. “
Wrong on this one, my friend. We are talking about a contract here. The Treasury has full power to waive its rights under the contract. Guess who controls the executive branch that the Treasury reports to...
“Upholding the law means the laws as they actually stand (as passed by Congress and interpreted by the courts), not as Trump wishes them to be.”
And those are the laws Im referring to...the actual laws. You seem to be under the impression that all laws come from courts. There are many other sources of law than that. The UCC is one that comes to mind.
“You need to read Hank's book to understand this. It is there in public domain. All know it.”
There is nothing in Hank’s book that reveals duress on the BOD. This has all been discussed ad nauseam.
“It amazes how you apply different standards to different people.”
Not sure where you got this...but I don’t. Same standard for everyone.
“One can not compare US agency heads to managers at McDonalds or even CEOs of big corporations, leave alone comparing with cashiers...”
Of course you can. It’s all business. It’s only the size and value that change. The same laws and fundamentals of business still apply.
“You seem to be living another world. The fact is, so far courts have refused to review legality of NWS using 4617(f). This interpretation of HERA by irresponsible Judges has tied up everybody's hands. “
The courts have nothing to with what Trump can and cannot do with regards to the NWS. Have judges taken the Treasurys side? Yes. This doesn’t change that Trump made a promise to uphold the law...a ruling that bars judicial review does not make the NWS legal. The NWS has never been ruled on for its merits.
“If Perry's appeal ruling were to go in favor Plaintiffs then the conservatorship would have ended long time back. “
You are confusing issues. Perry did not challenge the conservatorship.
“DJT administration has taken more than required time to come up with a solution. “
And done nothing.
“But if we apply the same standards to people before DJT then most of them look like out right criminals.”
You are welcome to apply whatever standards you want to people before Trump...DJT is looking like the criminal TODAY for not adhering to the law and ending the NWS.
“Any time DJT is way more trust worthy than previous hypocrites.”
Your devote blindness is just one reason the NWS hasn’t ended...because Trump knows you’ll support his actions either way.
Put your love for Trump aside and DEMAND he end the NWS as the right thing to do.
“But this has become more of political in nature than technical issue.”
When Trump was elected POTUS, people on this board proclaimed that he would not be subject to political influence and would uphold the law regardless of the political effect.
As time has gone on and the POTUS has done nothing to uphold the law for us, those here have started making excuses about how it is for political reasons that he hasn’t ended the NWS yet.
Trust me, the irony is not lost on me. If the POTUS wants to uphold the law, this gives him an easy opportunity. The NWS is illegal...he should fix it.
“FHFA Directors should have been pure technocrats than a life time politicians.”
While I agree, this is an issue of the past and is irrelevant to the decisions that can be made now.
“These people are expecting everything to be set right the moment DJT becomes POTUS.”
Im not sure who “these people” are referenced to be in your post, but I would like to remind you that people on this board DID expect Trump to fix things the moment he became POTUS and posted on this board saying as much.
It wasn’t until Trump failed to fix things right away that the excuses for him began and the delays in fixing things were forgiven.
I was not a proponent of the “Trump fix” when he was running for POTUS and was very vocal about it. I didn’t believe he was a friend to GSE shareholders. I still stand by that belief, and Trumps verbal declaration that he expects the NWS to continue (thru his agent) has affirmed my suspicions.
This isn’t a complicated issue. It isn’t tax codes or health care. It isn’t war or immigration. This is a single contract term on a single contract that violates contract and constitutional laws. A POTUS who believes in restoring law could take care of this in under a day.
This is not what I want.
I am without doubt that any housing reform will be bad for shareholders. Statements from Congress, Watt and Mnuchin all have supported this.
What I want is an immediate declaration from the executive branch that the NWS will end today.
Im not sure what you mean...
Trump took very aggressive stances both verbally and in twitter about his wish for the ACA to go away from before his campaign started all the way until even today.
It was only his uncertainty about HOW to end the ACA that remained unclear.
Trust me, I would DEFINITELY take a comment from Trump about how the NWS is illegal and wrong and he wants to end it, but needs to figure out how.
Yes Ginnie Mae is very different, but still a potential liability due to this mythical "implicit guarantee"
We should be clear on this. Ginnie Mae does not have an implicit guarantee. It has an explicit guarantee. Ginnie Mae are backed by the "full faith and credit" guarantee of the United States government.
The implicit guarantee that FnF share stem from the explicit guarantee that GNMA has and that FnF used to have an explicit guarantee before they were privatized.
And FnF have completely different functions than GNMA does...so I'm not sure how housing reform can sweep across them all at once.
Combining F&F reform with FHA and Ginnie Mae reform
GNMA is completely different than FNMA and FMCC in a fundamental structure. It would be like trying to complete technology Reform that encompasses Apple Computer and Honda.
I don't see how they can accomplish housing reform that considers a sweeping change that would affect both GNMA and FNMA/FMCC.
However, that being said...my point is that the NWS should end WITHOUT housing reform, and that the two topics are separate.
Agree...
People forget sometimes that Executive Agency leaders report directly to the POTUS the same way a cashier at McDonalds reports to his manager. If the POTUS tells an Executive Agency leader that they have to do something, then they have to do it or risk getting fired.
Sessions is a bad example because his being fired for not doing what the President wants looks really bad and could even lead to impeachment.
But Mnuchin...Carson...these are people who could be fired easily without much public backlash. Therefore, we can assume that whatever actions Mnuchin and Carson are taking, the POTUS supports them, since they haven't been fired or reprimanded on Twitter.
Therefore, when Mnuchin said "The NWS is expected to continue", the POTUS was saying "The NWS is expected to continue".
I just don't understand how people continue to refute this...unless it's just because they want to "feel better" and not seriously consider the positives and negatives affecting this stock.
Rek, If somebody puts a gun to my head and says "sign this agreement" and I do because I'll be killed if I don't, is it binding?
No...that would be duress.
You know very well that the BOD was threatened with huge personal consequences if they did not go along with the program. Come on.
No, I do not know that and neither do you.
Oh come on...you've given me a run for my money several times! As has whip!
I've even changed my opinions several times based on things you and he and others have said on this board. This is just not one of those times. hehe.
Fully agree with your statements.
I'd even add that to your second statement about the BOD...at the time, bankruptcy of the GSEs was being discussed heavily. I seriously doubt that the BOD would accept bankruptcy over conservatorship.
In the end buck stops with POTUS for all executive branch decisions but not for FHFA decisions.
I agree. I have never disputed this.
But it is too early to conclude that "POTUS fails once again" after 9 years of lawlessness at unaccountable and independent agency FHFA as well with previous administration's revolving door bureaucrats.
At what point do we conclude that the POTUS has failed then? 10 months? 15 months? 4 years? What we are talking about is something that is fully within the POTUS's power and something that would take him a very short time to do...end the NWS. He failed when he didn't undo the NWS the first day he was in office, and he fails every day that passes and continues to not undo the NWS. And if he feels he needs more discussion prior to actually ending it, fine...but the least he can do is make some sort of twitter post commenting on his opinion that the NWS is illegal and should end.
There are many visble efforts that DJT administration and GOP/RNC are making to end Gov control over FnF and restore rule of law.
I disagree with this assessment and would actually claim the opposite. Mnuchin's comment that he expects the NWS to continue is the first and most obvious thing that comes to mind.
Other than one comment from Mnuchin about NWS in senate hearing, we have heard only positive news from DJT administration.
I would also disagree with this assessment and would actually claim the opposite. Every statement made from the Executive Branch has indicated that the NWS will continue until housing reform is complete. Unfortunately, "housing reform" is so ambiguous, that it isn't possible to ascertain whether it would be beneficial for shareholders or not.
Please refer me to the "positive news" that you are indicating from the DJT administration that indicates movement to ending the NWS. I know of no such statements.
The rest of your post seems to reflect this statement, so I would put the test to you to link me to "positive news" that indicates movement to ending the NWS without housing reform.
By the way...none of your response seems to actually have addressed the topic of this thread...which was Ben Carson's ability to make change as head of the HUD. To that end, I will repeat my previous sentiment to make sure it isn't forgotten...Ben Carson leads HUD. HUD is an executive branch agency, just like Treasury. The POTUS oversees HUD and has DIRECT control over it...just like Treasury. Long story short...if the POTUS hasnt directed Treasury to fix this, HUD isnt gonna do much better. POTUS Fail.
“Some of the members of that BoD have alluded to, publicly, that they had no choice. Or had a proverbial gun to their head.
That sounds to me like a decision made under duress.
Why not focus more on that?”
First, because having a “proverbial gun to ones head” is not duress.
Second, because the idea that the BOD “had no choice” is complete speculation that they have NOT alluded to publicly as you claim.
“NOBODY knows what his next moves will be. “
Next move? I’d settle for a first move.
Not even a tweet about the GSEs as of yet.
“Your expectations are misplaced.
POTUS and WH are not supposed to directly interfere with regulators or law enforcement authorities. POTUS/WH influence the decision making through WH policies.
Ben Carson as HUD-Sy has direct authority in housing matters. Earlier OFHEO was an agency under direct control of HUD-Sy. During Obama admministration Tsy-sy started controlling every aspect of FHFA. “
Dude...it is your expectations that seem misplaced.
Ben Carson leads HUD. HUD is an executive branch agency, just like Treasury.
The POTUS oversees HUD and has DIRECT control over it...just like Treasury.
Long story short...if the POTUS hasnt directed Treasury to fix this, HUD isnt gonna do much better.
POTUS fails once again.
Shareholders entered contract in good faith ? Bs , shareholders had no say
Yes they did. They elected the BOD that voted for it. That is the shareholder's say in any corporation.
For you to say shareholders entered contract in good faith , is making assumption we had a say and are making us responsible or accountable to agreeing to this contract.
WE did not have a say, because we weren't shareholders at the time the contract was entered into. In reality, we have no right to complain at all unless we were shareholders prior to the housing crash.
But the shareholders who WERE owners at the time are definitely bound to the 2008 agreement that the BOD agreed to.
And the NWS is a clear breach of that agreement.
What's preventing the Trump Adminstration from going through with the Moelis plan or blueprint now?
Trump can't just do this without Watt's support. It would change an existing contract.
The only thing Trump can do unilaterally is end the NWS.
It is time for Ben Carson to take active part and resolve the Conservatorship mess.
What the heck? Are we grasping at straws now?
TRUMP, DO YOUR JOB AND END THE NWS! OR AT LEAST TELL US IF YOU DON'T INTEND TO END THE NWS SO THAT WE KNOW FOR SURE WE CAN'T COUNT ON YOU TO UPHOLD THE LAW AND PROTECT SHAREHOLDERS WHO ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT IN GOOD FAITH!
Agree fully. Great post.
so catch 22 does not arise.
It most definitely does...and I didn't quote you wrong. Your quotes just don't seem to fit together.
Below are all quotes by you....
Plaintiff's allegation are considered to be true before court decides otherwise
First of all, let's make one thing clear. Plaintiff's allegations are NOT considered to be true before the court decides otherwise. If anything, Plaintiff's allegations are considered to be FALSE before court decides otherwise. That is the staple of "innocent before proven guilty".
Therefore, something can not be unlawful unless the court says it is.
Courts decide what is lawful and what is not lawful.
Very true...which is why this quote doesn't fit with the first quote I typed of yours.
9th/11th Circuits have ruled that 4617(f) does not bar judicial review of unlawful decisions by FHFA.
But it does bar judicial review of lawful decisions by FHFA.
Now try to follow me here, and it will lead to the catch 22 that you've proposed...
1. 4617(f) bars judicial review of lawful decisions by the FHFA.
2. Courts decide what is lawful and unlawful.
3. In order to be determined unlawful, a court has to hear it.
4. If the court hears it, and it is determined to be lawful, then 4617(f) bars it from being heard.
Conclusion: In order for the court to review the unlawful decisions of FHFA, the decision must first be ruled unlawful, which violates 4617(f) if the decision is ruled lawful, but you can't determine it to be lawful until it's been heard by the court, which would violate 4617(f).
Chicken...Egg....
Well, this isn't really my area of expertise....but how I understand it...
The exercise price is the price of the option. So, if I give you an option to buy stock at an exercise price at 3.00, then no matter what the market price is, you can still buy it at 3.00.
The market price is the price that it is today.
So it looks like it's saying that if the market price is greater than the guaranteed price (of 3.00 in my example above), then the Treasury can choose the shares at the market price instead of the difference in value between the warrant payment price and the market price.
You are right...
Let me try again:
1 + (redacted) = (Executive Privilege)
Better?
1 + 1 = 3.
Dang, I'm good at math...Government style.
Haha...
Section 16 was one reason in a list of reasons.
If the Treasury actually used this workaround, then it would be under scrutiny who they assigned the rights to. Could you imagine if Mnuchin ordered that the rights be assigned to him personally? He'd probably lose his job, but there's technically nothing illegal against him giving that order. haha.
But all wild speculations aside...there are a lot of reasons I don't believe the warrants will be exercised...Section 16 is just one of them. (Also, fyi, some of the reasons were legal...others were just personal belief).
I also would add that if Treasury DID exercise that "loophole", Treasury wouldn't actually be owning the shares...so no income would go into Treasury. They could potentially use the shares as "debt payment" to creditors that the government owes...but now I'm just completely coming up with theories without fact.
Agree with the idea.
As you noted, the numbers themselves are probably unknown.