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.
New Money: To attract new investors after treating current shareholders with such contempt they need a clever marketing slogan. I'm reminded of a
sign on my mechanic's wall
"We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you" End of problem.
Navy Commander: Has Judge Steele commented on the Lamberth ruling?
Will this info be available to the Judges from the third Circuit that
are taking under advisement the trial in Philadelphia?
P.S. I had the pleasure of meeting the Judge in Phila. A man of great stature
Additional comments from Court: Met a distinguished looking gentleman in the hall before beginning and asked are you Mr Steele to which he replied yes. Told him I was an interested shareholder and he smiled and asked "are you aware that yesterday Maxine Waters publicly declared that GSEs paid back all the money?" I could only say "strange bedfellows" to which he smiled. Although Hindes did a good job I was hoping Steele handle the rebuttal. There seemed to be a lot of GSE guys there but after sitting for three hours I wanted to split
Court info: 3 cases before us and did not start until approx. 11am
Hindes did the the talking Steele was there at the table.
Bottom line (wild guess) Hardiman Krause in our corner Bibas? Hindes led off with the opening same as the outline we read last week all the details. The judges had briefs to follow and did not as interrupt.
Bibas asked about HERA restrictions against legal challenges and outcomes from other trials (dismissals) and Hindes expounded on the Delaware law precluding 100% dividends at the expense of other preferreds. Krause and Hardiman asked about penalty charges and Hindes pointed out that dividends missed required that and was then asked if just cancelling the third amendment would be OK. FHFA guy then came on with the same warped story about the Govt has a third of a trillion earmarked to save the taxpayers.
He did agree that beginning 2012 GSE were in profit mode. Treasury guy came on and said 2012, 2013,2014 were good but it was in decline since then
and gse needed bucks recently. There were requests for clarification from the bench and govt responded with half truths and BS. Back cones Hindes for rebuttal and explained that 2012 and 2013 were very strong because the revenue was supplemented with loan loss reserve reversal because they were not needed in the first place Chief Judge jumped on that and asked DID THE GSES NEED MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Bench asked other questions about profit outlooks and concluded with they will study the issue and decide. Govt guys jumped up to speak but were slapped down and told to "put anything else in writing"
Cavanaugh was asked to state important Supreme Court decisions that were reversed and replied "Brown v Board ED" and "Erie v Tompkins" the latter had similarities to FandF in that it involved issues that are similar to the Delaware law super seeding total net worth sweep
I am thinking about attending this case tomorrow. Any others attending?
A clever promotional marketing slogan could help raise new capital.
We could help by supplying suggestions. Here is mine
"We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you"
34B is correct amount. Also dividends could be restored for 1/2 B per quarter which is a small amount to make most of the legal conflict go away
since their earnings are so much larger
Successful Reverse Splits may be the exception but they do occur with well known corporations. I was urged by ML to buy convertible Preferred in Lab Corp October 1999 before a reverse split. Check Yahoo for historical info. the symbol is LH since then the gain is 1900% according to ML.
I was at first discouraged at watt's comments until I read the entire PDF and noticed "investor" mentioned a lot. I then entered "ctrl f" to count and saw a total of 11 times. Conclusion: Watt is hedging but pointing out that the issue of obligation to investors is not dead.
Judges Millet and brown ruled on this case and it was heard November 15 2016.
Somehow we dropped out of the Que.
It was posted as an earlier article.
Fiduciary Duty discussed from earlier article.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/11/ninth-circuit-provides-new-ammunition-to-fannie-and-freddie-shareholders/
Anyone have the exact address and Court number of the Aug 11 hearing? I have the time available and estimate 3 hours down and 3 hours back. A lot of Attorneys will be present and I need opinions if the trip will be worth it
New TH717. Very profound, orderly, and supportive to our position http://timhoward717.com/
Exercising warrants by Govt seems to be a slam dunk but Professor Epstein explains reasons why that would be very unwise in his podcast early Dec at 29.5 minutes. He also covers many other issues in the last 30 minutes that work in our favor including the forthcoming discover interviews, the continuing "protecting taxpayer" mantra and most importantly "fiduciary duty" many times. I am long with many preferreds but am starting to consider the very large upside if warrants are not exercised. Comments?
Maloni info extremely profound, thorough, and informative. Confirms to me that most pols including BO do not have a complete understanding of the F&F situation. Reminds me of the great Will Rogers Quote "It's not what we don't know that hurts us, it's what we do know that just isn't true".
Bit the bullet this AM and signed up for WSJ. Ted Olson is one of the few that could influence me. David Boyce is another: both are on our side. Also I figure the 12 week subscription will get me thru the next financial report and the comments thru the WSJ.
BTW is there any consensus as to the batting order on the lawsuits?
Herron v fannie mae decision clearly invalidates the treasury dept
changes made August 17 2012. Decision states many times "fannie mae not a govt actor". Therefore Demarco has complete Fiduciary duty with all responsibility and legal jeopardy if he misteps. More on GSE Fiduciary Responsibility in a future post as it is the heart of our legal position.
Herron v fannie mae decision clearly invalidates the treasury dept
changes made August 17 2012. Decision states many times "fannie mae not a govt actor". Therefore Demarco has complete Fiduciary duty with all responsibility and legal jeopardy if he misteps. More on GSE Fiduciary Responsibility in a future post as it is the heart of our legal position.
At the end he started to say something about organizing but lost his train of thought and was interrupted. I know there are groups other than a than this IH board but would like to see the power of Nader organized. Any thoughts? How does one Email him?
Defensive Position:
Also concerned about how far and fast these prefs could fall. While I havn't pulled the trigger I am considering the following:
Sell X number fnmao short. div 2 yr cmt -.18%
Buy X number fnmfn long. div greater of 7% or 10 yr cmt+ 2.375%
Theory: If good news fnmfn will go to $50 if not higher and will probably be called but fnmao will go to $35 to $40 due to low div.
If bad news both tank but can pocket the short bucks. I see the following problems: Execution of short sale and buying fnmfn which is thinly traded.
Best of luck to you Taint and I look forward to seeing all of us made whole
Spot on. Fiduciary responsibility is the controlling law in this matter as stated in this link
http://books.google.com/books?id=jpzakMP4938C&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=fannie+mae+fiduciary&source=bl&ots=n4uWk5p0KV&sig=ZsXSRKKcvWJbk3Ow29U9q43XBjY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hBeWUbCADNPI4AOZh4HYCA&sqi=2&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=fannie%20mae%20fiduciary&f=false
Excellent post especially the reference to SEC whose activity could swing a borderline call if they have enough ammo. Paramount issue for SEC to determine is FIDUCIARY responsibility of FHFA (DeMarko)delisting FnF by not reverse splitting and the Aug 2012 grabbing profits instead of accrue to reserves. Lawsuit concernnalso critical
Major breakthru because a Federal Official acknowleged tax credits will be allowed instead of some analyst. Also there is a Motley Fool article this AM promoting FnF as a GREAT penny stock. For the last 4+ years my position has been "hold". I'm upgrading now to BUY and wish good luck to all.
Help David Boyce victory Stockholder matter was posted last week but I cannot find it due to heavy traffic. Can anyone direct me to the post?
Thanks for the contact info. Sent him an email asking for an update of his opinion.
Speaking of ICBA has their President Camden Fine written anything recently on FnF? He has been vocal in the past and represents a lot of people.
IPO solves many problems but cannot be accomplished without making whole current preferred shareholders.
Our destinies are interlinked. Both are operating at a profit which was the stated requirement to resume dividend payout back in 2008 from FnF directly. We need the support from heavy hitters like Camden Fine, Pres ICBA, Ralph Nader frequent loudmouth and owner of some FnF. Both have written about FnF and advocate dividend payout. Help me with other advocate names and plans. For sure letters to our reps should begin immediately