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.
You really should create a new user name after that last response.
To begin, you are not being honest in regards to what Mr. Howard has been privy to.
He has been hired as a consultant by plaintiffs. You don't know what he has been privy to.
And sure board members should give credence to an anonymous poster playing a lawyer on a message board over Mr. Howard's miniscule understanding of the enterprises...
"Timothy Howard was a senior executive at Fannie Mae for 23 years. After beginning his career there as chief economist in 1982, he quickly became involved with financial matters. He was given responsibility for managing Fannie Mae’s largest business—its portfolio of purchased mortgages—in 1987, and in 1990 became the company’s chief financial officer. He added the duties of chief risk officer in 2000, and was named vice chairman of the board in 2003. When Howard left Fannie Mae at the end of 2004, it was safely and profitably financing more than one in every four home loans in the U.S."
The lols that this deserves would use excessive bandwidth, so I've created a new abbreviation in your honor... Lol Infinity, lol8.
Congratulations!
Yes, Mr. Factual... :)
A man that ran the enterprise for a decade is absolutely lacking as an expert in testimony.
I bet they just paid him to stay home and not mess it all up.
Do you know who you are talking to?
He is the official IHUB FNMA legal analyst. A constitutional scholar.
One that doesn't understand the most basic fact that we live in a Republic form of government, but don't let that prevent you from heeding the gems of pure wisdom.
Should have linked to "Be Prepared" on Lion King soundtrack- probably after the commercial.
Peeps need to heed the signs.. the tea leaves of the market are telling a story.. and the story isn't what happens with Mel today/tomorrow.
The question is, are you going to be in our out when the story breaks...
Be prepared, or like a thief in the night.. you will wake to find your fannie dreams gone!
Atlanta... This or my YouTube link?
Ride the news cycle folks...
Let's get this trending...
https://twitter.com/GH2002GH/status/913667810185719808
***are not
Surely the legal eagles of the board that don't grasp the basics of our foundation are here just to provide distraction?
;)
It's fun to watch them work for their $$
Unfortunately, not until something happens with health care. Trade it.
Yes.... And you still don't understand America has a republic form of government, so this is no surprise.
Righhhht... Obama couldn't find the money outside of the GSE's... But Trump can magically pull it out of a hat.... Sure. Simply genius idea....wonder why Obama didn't think of that?
Who needs funds to be appropriated?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/house-gop-wins-obamacare-lawsuit-223121
Opps, looks like the courts do... Imagine that. The president can't just willy nilly stuff around.
I understand your position and can see reason supporting it's arrival.
However, past history does not always predict future outcome.
And not being familiar with all ethics cases, I suspect that most accused with a fixed outcome are not taking pot shots at the administration.
See Menendez.
I do appreciate the admission in your deflective question....
"Why hasn't Trump cleaned up this mess"... You're correct, he didn't make it.
And "This point in time"... Dead give away that you know that money has been taken by Obamacare from the GSE... Otherwise, you wouldn't try to limit the time frame to the present to attempt to shape a false argument.
You have no clothes... :)
Sure Bra...
Trump and Mnuchin haven't done a thing to promote the passage of new health care bills by Congress.... Sure.
With debt ceiling to work within, they could just pull billions of dollars that haven't been appropriated out of their butts...Sure.
And walking into office and stopping Obamacare instantly would have 0 repercussions.....Sure.
No. The future of this situation is crystal sparkling clear...
He's about to catch a severe case of shut the _____ up.
Ever seen a copy of his 2007-2015 taxes? And you won't.
It's a rather difficulty position to tell the Senate ethics committee that you need to adjust your Senate financial disclosures in 2015 back and including 2007 with other 83 changes because your accountant errored, yet your accountant blames you for not providing all the necessary documentation. The same accounting agency that filed your federal taxes...
The same federal taxes that there is no evidence of being amended....
Uh Oh....
Bob is an ethics investigation away from being humiliated in front of the country and having home serious fines levied upon him.
He is not in a position to stoke the hornets nest.
Twitter time folks...
Take advantage of the news cycles to get our story out.
Post on popular accounts. Post health care threads.
Throw something like this out...
https://twitter.com/GH2002GH/status/912759366029365248
And follow up with
https://twitter.com/GH2002GH/status/912752167714529280
And
https://twitter.com/GH2002GH/status/912751966979264512
And
https://t.co/NvXzBAmf17
Time to fannie pill people!
Haha!
Time to start on Warner... :)
Now, yes. But not BEFORE Sweeny caused discovery.
Agree. Without the documents proving fraud and perjury, what incentive would the government have to settle?
I may not have a good handle on the entire situation- I will fully concede my limited knowledge.
If the gov is completely in the right, there is no need for settlement.
If they are not in the right, all ammunition available is considered in settlement. Setlements are made to decrease time involved and secure a win for the party wronged. The defendants benefit is obtaining a reduced judgement.
Damages that can be awarded by the court in a win for plantiffs would be part of the discussion between the parties and part of the stimulous for the gov to settle.
If enough concessions are not offered by the defendent, and a solid case exists, it can easily be worth the plantifs time to proceed.
Understand your point.
Seen enough court cases to know settlements often leave both sides unhappy about something.
But the amount of money in contest for that long of a duration with damages is significant.
Your take seems practical based on past history of this situation.
But, I still hold out hope for some action in the Delaware case.
When you find that interview with Warren, be sure and post it.
What?
The fact he said he would ban anyone who tweeted about fnma to him in the past would support your hypothesis.
Interesting man.
Something tells me Bob's meeting didn't go so well at the WH. Poor Bob. He should probably start stretching.
So he doesn't pull anything trying to kiss his own butt goodbye. :)
Tim Howard quote.$FNMA $FMCC Tim Howard comments on today's interview with Mnuchin: pic.twitter.com/75IngM0xST
— InvestIt (@FNMA_RRR) September 15, 2017