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.
That's ok....navy found it.
Thank you!
Awesome...thanks!
Can someone please remind me? I wanted to access a video of Mel Watt's last testimony, but I can't remember when it was or who he was talking to.
Any help appreciated.
You seem to be answering someone else's question.
I asked "Why would Trump try to remove Watt when Watt is doing exactly what Trump wants?"
The answer is...he wouldn't. Trump clearly wants what Watt is doing. Mnuchin said as much.
You are making an assumption and justifying it by claiming it is merely critical thinking on your part.
No, I'm not...
An assumption is taking something as true without any evidence...In this case, Trumps ability to end the NWS and his complete silence are very legitimate evidential pieces.
Res Ipsa Loquitur is a legal theory that is based on the idea that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and smells like a duck, then it is probably a duck.
In the same mode of thinking, if Trump takes the NWS payment, doesn't complain about the NWS payments, and has the power to stop the NWS payments...then he probably likes the NWS payments.
It's logic...not assumption.
Let me know when somebody--anybody---asks him a question about the GSE's and what his answer is.
He has been asked thru Mnuchin. Mnuchin clearly stated he intends the NWS to continue. Mnuchin is an extension of Trump.
Agreed...unfortunately.
There has been no executive order that would help us.
And a yearly sweep is no better.
Trump needs to just end the sweep and restore law like he promised!
Trump isn’t some random Congressman or Reporter.
It is his department that is accepting the NWS payment.
Trumps 9 month silence about the NWS (especially given his power to stop it) plus his acceptance of the NWS payments leads any critical thinker to only one conclusion...that he is in favor of the billions of inflowing dollars and plans to have it continue.
Any other conclusion, given his power and affinity to speak openly about anything and everything, ...must be wrong.
Lol...why would Trump try to remove Watt when Watt is doing exactly what Trump wants?
Article full of wrong information and fallacies...
And minimizing the harm being done to our healthcare system with NO benefit to the GSEs or shareholders.
For shame to that horrible writer.
Per your opinion.
Who knows what his opinion is of the American Dream and what that means.
All I know is what we've heard...nothing.
Agree fully
Lol. Its ok...most wont believe me anyway.
I'm not sticking around for dividends.
The reality is that there is a VERY good chance that dividends will never be paid on this stock again.
Im just hoping the NWS ends and the stock shoots to 20 before most people realize this.
No...im just playing with "price is right" type pps estimating.
I dont have an estimate. But I refuse to sell under 20.
Drew, Id like to bid 19.99!
The article is right there for you to read. No belief needed. The article never mentions the conservator.
"Is there a reason to call anything a conservatorship if it is not really conservatorship? "
There are many different types of conservatorship...so I guess the answer would be that you can call anything a conservatorship as long as you define the terms of that conservatorship.
"If FHFA conservatorship is not traditional consevatorship, not any known statutory conservatorship, not grandfather conservatorship then what it is? "
It is a conservatorship defined under the rules of HERA and court decisions that interpret it.
"Congress modeled HERA after FIRREA for non-banking FnF without redefining Consrevatorsip. What makes fake FHFA conservatorship any different from FIRREA conservatorship? "
You keep saying this, but unless it says in HERA or supplemental document that HERA follows FIRREA, then FIRREA is irrelevant. HERA is contained within the terms it sets.
"Can FHFA and Judges opportunistically redefine any words abusing the privilege of 4617(f)? Congress gave FHFA the power of 4617(f) to serve and protect the public."
'Opportunistically' is a loaded word that I wont bother responding to. As for what Congress gave the power to FHFA for...please refer me to the public statement outlining their intent. Also, please define "protect the public". I have no doubt that that means different things to each member of congress.
Because it hasn't been ruled on. He posted about the Conservator, but the article is about the BOD pre-conservatorship.
"Does the Conservator have Fiduciary Responsibilities to the GSE's and it` Shareholders......Absolutely"
Not a single word of the article you posted supports this statement.
No, the conservator does not owe a fiduciary responsibility to either the GSEs or shareholders.
"It has long been discussed by many hard working Shareholders (Taxpayers) that all this c-ship stiff was fake and pre-designed to get the Public confused and hating these Enterprises. "
I know that this has been speculated...but thats all it really is at this point...speculation.
My last post is an attempt to display my opinion without speculation (whether I succeeded or not is probably open to debate).
But the idea that the conservatorship was predesigned is a conspiracy theory at this point and nothing more.
fiduciary responsibility to the GSE's.
Let me first address this...
The Conservator does not owe a fiduciary duty to the GSEs. Fiduciary duties are duties of candor, honesty and loyalty. They cover things like not lying to the beneficiary of the fiduciary duty or personally benefiting at the cost of the beneficiary. Fiduciary relationships might exist between a BOD and its shareholders (for example, if a member of the BOD told shareholders to buy a stock so the price went up, then the BOD sold their shares right before the price tanked,...this would be a violation of a fiduciary duty.)
What Conservators have is a duty to perform as the order that put them into Conservatorship instructed. In this case, HERA lays out how the Conservator may ask. This was a big part of the Perry case, which defined parts of HERA in order to establish what duties the Conservator must perform.
But they aren't fiduciary duties.
Based on the knowledge and proof that the GSE's are, and have reformed some serious issues. ( not withstanding the reasons they acquired ALT-A loans and other dubious investments) why or how could it be reasoned that it could or would be better off to liquidate the GSE's?
I doubt it could. It's possible that the Conservator could have made a reasoned argument back in 2008 or 2009, but now? No way. The companies are profitable, and it can be proven that they are profitable today. Liquidation would be such a violation of the Conservatorship, that there would likely be criminal fraud allegations if they tried it now.
However...many in government still believe that the GSEs are not safe going forward, even with the reforms that the Conservator has put in place. Watt has called on Congress to make housing reform change. If (and of course, I have no idea what they would actually do), Congress were to determine that housing reform involved replacing the GSEs with new companies, then that is one way to "liquidate" the GSEs without actually liquidating them. It would be shifty, for sure,...but it is one of the risks we are all taking in our long position.
I'm not actually aware of a fraud lawsuit relating to the 2008 contract. Does one exist where this even could be litigated?
Which lawsuit is suing for fraud in the original contract, where it would be proved during trial?
I don't know why they gave them out, but it was part of the "recap and release" for AIG somehow.
Honestly, they probably gave them out because they figured it was cheaper than a lawsuit. lol.
Very interesting to hear though...had no idea they did this.
Contracts based on fraudulent intentions and mis-representations are not valid.
A contract based on fraud and mis-representations is NOT the same thing as a contract that was not "necessary".
And as a side not, there is no proof of fraud on the part of the government back in 2008.
My question is, why would the courts allow the NWS amendment when it directly conflicts with the fiduciary responsibilities of the conservator?
So...first, let me say that I disagree with the NWS for a different reason. I believe it was a breach of contract, and constituted an amendment to an existing contract without further consideration.
In contracts, when you amend an existing contract, you must offer additional consideration (something of value) to both parties in order for the amendment to be valid. In the case of the NWS, nothing additional was given to FHFA in the contract...which makes the entire amendment invalid.
Therefore, I believe the preexisting duty rule should apply which would invalidate the NWS, and refund overpayments.
That being said...now I'll answer your question. haha.
The short answer to your question is that the Conservator does not owe a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.
The Conservators responsibilities are to do what he/she deems best for the companies, not the shareholders. In some cases, the conservator can even liquidate companies under the argument that it is the best option for the companies.
If the Conservator at the time of the NWS (I think it was DeMarco) believed that that was what was best for the companies, he has the right to do it. He does not need to consider fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders at all.
Conservatorship is intended to stabilize troubled institutions with the objective of maintaining normal business operations and restoring financial safety and soundness.
Well, I think many here would agree that the NWS has not done this...and I believe Trump should end the NWS today. But that being said, because the Conservator owes no duty to shareholders, if there is belief that this term of HERA has been violated because of the NWS, shareholders don't have a right to sue for that reason.
I'm very curious about the warrants they gave you. How did that happen? What were the terms?
If AiG is used as an example to state that the government will exercise the warrants, then it is apples and oranges comparison.
Or at least a Fuji apple to Granny Smith apple comparison. They are similar, but not identical.
Here in Fannie Mae there was a payback that exceeded the original loan amount and on top of it you cannot exercise the warrant to recover your money either.
This is false. There has been no payback of anything. The payments made thus far are a "dividend" structure. In NO reality is a dividend a form of payback on debt. Under the original contract, the company would have paid the dividend in perpetuity, but paid back the "loan" with other monies retained. The NWS made that impossible. So, while the situation is likely illegal and wrong,...there is no valid argument that the government has been paid back as of today in the law.
cannot exercise the warrant to recover your money either. You cannot double dip is my humble opinion
The warrants are a contractual right to the Government. And to be clear, ...if the contract entered into allows it, the Government can most definitely "double dip". Contract terms are never required to be "fair".
the GSE's rescue was not necessary.
First of all, whether the GSE rescue was necessary or not is a matter of opinion. I would say it was very much necessary...there was talk of declaring bankruptcy on the GSEs at the time. If that had happened, we wouldn't even be here. The rescue gave us the ability to invest. The markets were panicing and the rescue calmed them. I remember the market went down to like 6000 points. I would have no doubt that it would have dropped lower without this rescue.
Second of all, whether the rescue was necessary or not is irrelevant when it comes to the warrants. "Necessary-ness" is not a condition of a valid contract. Even if there are LARGE amounts of documents showing that the rescue was not necessary (which there aren't) then the contract for the warrants is still valid.
these warrants looks like AIG's warrants
The warrants only look like AIGs in structure. Policy-wise, they are quite different. Though that might not matter, I admit. The courts will cite AIG if they believe its appropriate.
can you cite one reputable source that provides any reason(s) the warrants won't/can't be exercised?
No, there's no source of that the warrants can't be exercised. No one knows for sure. That's why I always put the word "likely" before my comment. haha.
It's like if I say it is not likely that a meteor will come and make humans extinct. It CAN happen, it just isn't likely. Same is true of the warrants, in my opinion.
Again, I'm NOT asking you to repeat your reasons
You have no idea how much this means to me. lol. I think I've repeated them like 8 times.
just looking for any reputable source that concur with you (besides the law suits we know about)
I think one of the issues is the words "reputable source". We are dealing in a great unknown right now. Some will try to compare us to AIG, but even that isn't really comparable. So, I would actually claim that anyone who claims to be a "reputable source" when giving their opinion about whether the warrants will be exercised or not is full of it. We are all just speculating. My opinion, for instance, is based on my understanding of the law...but it's still just an opinion. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
Are we back to this conversation again?
For the millions of reasons already stated, the warrants will likely never be executed.
"I get that there is a difference between the two but Watt has already said that the GSE's are reformed. Once he makes this statement, as far as I am concerned, his only concern other than day to day should be recap. "
See, and thats the problem. People confuse GSE reform with housing reform. GSEs are companies. Housing reform would encompass way more than that...regulations on banks, terms required for mortgages, interaction and audit requirements for companies like the GSEs...and much more.
Watt likely believes that our current system is not safe enough to end conservatorship and is calling on Congress to make it safer.
"They ARE privately held companies...let Congress work on "housing finance reform" and whatever happens to them should be no different than for instance a solar company after rebates are changed legislatively. Set them free, let them recap and the chips land where they land. "
SGINPHX...we both no that analogy is bologna. A solar company? If the solar industry crashes, the country will be fine. When the housing market crashes, a depression can start.
There is no way the government will just "let the chips land where they land" when it comes to the housing market.
That being said, the NWS is counterproductive and does not serve a purpose to protect the country in any way...it is just lining government pockets. And Trump should end the NWS today.
You are, like usual, confusing the conservators responsibilities of managing the GSEs with the task of housing reform, which is outside of the conservators role.
I don't think anyone here, including the shorts, believes that the NWS was a legitimate act.
Well, his fate was sealed before those battles. He had already announced his retirement.
As long as he's gone that's good. I just wouldn't want him to be gone for telling the truth about his opinion of the president. I would want other congressman to be empowered to do the same.
Well, I guess its moot now.
He'll be gone in Jan 2019, thankfully.
Thank you for speaking for your entire state.
Lol.
"What was the fear before planning to retire? "
Fear might not be the right word. But he can speak without having to worry about consequences in the 2018 elections. Let's not forget this is Tennessee...probably a HEAVY Trump State.
"Why would anyone waste their time when they have so many things to do? "
I ask that every time I see a DT tweet.
"Why would anyone who is a party loyalist likes to retire like that? "
Corker can be Anti-DT and still be loyal to the Republican party.
Many of DTs actions do not embrace Republican values, and it would appear that is why Corker is speaking out in the first place.
Yes, I agree with you.
The entire last 5 years should have never happened.
The Conservatorship, Ive always felt was legitimate...because even if it wasn't necessary in hindsight (as some claim), it definitely seemed necessary at the time.
But the NWS should not have happened. Not only was it a breach or contract. Not only is it an illegal modification without additional consideration. Not only does it violate the preexisting duty rule. But it flies in the face of capitalism...something that identifies America above all else.