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.
https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/news/treasury-fhfa-see-eye-to-eye-on-housing-finance-reform-top-official-says
WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department mostly agrees with a housing finance reform plan put forward by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mel Watt this week, according to Craig Phillips, a senior counselor to Secretary Steven Mnuchin.
The FHFA plan would return Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the private market and provide them an explicit, catastrophic guarantee for their mortgage-backed securities in return for fees paid into a reserve fund.
What a great analogy
Are you kidding me?
You're saying it's not a "reasonable expectation." I'm not even going to continue the conversation.
When I saw the NWS enacted, I believed with reasonable expectation that once the company had repaid in full, the sweep would end.
It has been years. It's been 9 years and almost a decade.
This ruling actually allows and confirms that Mel Watt can end the dividend payment alone. His job is not longer at risk due to the FHFA being unconstitutional.
Companies in conservatorship should not be paying dividends. A company profitable enough to pay dividends should no longer be in conservatorship. It's really that simple.
Looks like more schizophrenic talk. Doesn't look good in court.
I agree! These senators don't even know the difference between conservatorship or receivership. I don't trust them to know the difference between GSEs and TBTFs.
Just saying that it wouldn't look good in court that's all.
You missed the point completely. The FHFA is not supposed to have direction from the White House or any other agency.
That wouldn't look good in court. The FHFA director is supposed to be in charge of the conservatorship. Judge SWEENY has said there should be no direction from the White House or anyone else.
GSE shareholders keep 100% the liability and UST gets 100% of the profits merely by issuing a line of credit which can be pulled anytime.
Sounds like a fair, legitimate, lawful
Agreement by the Conservator.
If taxpayers were 100% on the hook, then why aren't the GSE liabilities on the balance sheet? Oh yeah that's right
Hahaha!!!
Will history repeat itself?
Warren Buffett's biggest mistake in investing.
"But, the biggest mistakes we’ve made by far— I’ve made, not we’ve made. The biggest mistakes I’ve made by far are mistakes of omission and not commission. I mean it’s the things I knew enough to do, they were within my circle of competence, and I was sucking my thumb. And that is really, those are the ones that hurt. They don’t show up any place. I probably cost
Berkshire at least $5 billion, for example, by sucking my thumb 20 years ago, or close to it when Fannie Mae was having some troubles. We could have bought the whole company for practically nothing. "
Says it again here at this Speech to students - starting at the 46:45 mark
https://vimeo.com/7614612
First quote from below transcript:
https://www.gurufocus.com/news/217042/warren-buffett-speech-to-university-of-georgia-students-part-1-archive-2001
That would be interesting. Buffett is the type of investor that I think would require stock certificates. Does anyone else have an opinion that there has been some sort of colluded effort to keep the common stock low? It is my opinion that there are more holders of common stock than the 1.1B it should be. I wonder how that would go down. Have a great weekend all.
"Watt said in prepared testimony to the Senate Banking Committee."
https://m.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/fannie,-freddie-regulator-says-may-have-to-retain-earnings-482817
The article said it was in his "prepared remarks" for tomorrow's testimony and that they expect to discuss reform.
"Watt, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), could order Fannie and Freddie to retain future profits as a way to shore up the companies' accounts.
"We cannot risk the loss of investor confidence," he said. "FHFA's actions would be taken solely to avoid a draw during conservatorship."
They absolutely do. In legal filings they are stating they can act as receiver "or "conservator. They are also attempting to sell off their assets and divert 100% of their income to the US treasury in lieu of building Captial or paying off the initial "loan" which they now call an "investment." They are by no means acting as they should be as conservator.
And for that matter and by the way conservatorship and receivership are not the same thing. I understand the government would like to think they are and would like to use the word or as if they can interchange them at any time. Just because they have been acting a certain way doesn't make it legal or correct.
I would agree with you if the shares were actually already diluted. Warrants to purchase shares is not the same as purchased shares.
I guess we will have to disagree on this one. If offering warrants was the same as offering common stock then why would there even be warrants in the first place? It has already been ruled in the AIG case that the exercise of the warrants was illegal. This will be used as precedent in my opinion if they try to be exercised.
Yeah I don't know where you're getting your math… The warrants have not been exercised. There are only 1.15 billion outstanding common shares of Fannie Mae stock.
Certainly a contract agreement from two branches of government cannot trump the law.
You cannot lend a company or an individual money and then when they're about to pay you back change the terms to say you can never repay me.
That's not true. The government changed The rules. They changed the terms of the repayment. If the original terms were going to be 100% dividend profit sweep, then there would be no reason for warrants in the first place because the government would essentially own 100% of the company. They changed the rules. It is illegal.
And further; if a conservator could act like a receiver, then why are there two different terms? Why not just be delegated a conserveareceicer.
It is baffling that this is interpreted incorrectly. It is very simple. The FHFA was to be delegated a Conservator OR Receiver. If delegated a conservator; then the conservator must rehabilitate. If the FHFA was delegated receiver, then it can wind up affairs. It is either OR. Conserve OR Receive. FHFA was not delegated a receiver and therefore cannot wind up affairs. This is ridiculous.
It is coming together
"Trump Should Stop Obama Scheme That Steals Money For Obamacare"
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/23/president-trump-should-stop-obama-scheme-that-steals-money-from-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-for-obamacare/#ixzz4cDSGhs4M
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/23/president-trump-should-stop-obama-scheme-that-steals-money-from-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-for-obamacare/#ixzz4cAvjsohR
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.****************
Here is the video:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000601243
Apparently it was today, but that is from the person who posted it.
Anyone see this post on Stock Twits? It was a screenshot of a CNBC show stating Fannie And Freddie to be handled 3rd quarter of 2018?
http://stocktwits.com/udtrader/message/77241072
I have no idea what or how...just wanted to share. Let the speculation begin.
http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/video/archive/2017/3/9.aspx#715907
Mnuchin calls on Congress to raise debt limit
This makes sense that we would need to raise debt ceiling before stopping the NWS, correct? If the UST doesn't have the income stream from GSEs...connect the dots.