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.
Why cite the last 12 hours specifically? What was the big event attracting that many people to look at fanniegate? Corker's statement can't be the reason. Is it?
Fall 2008 it became so obvious, yes. For anyone paying close attention, it was basically revealed that this nation is not what we grew up thinking it was. Instead, it was a 100% corrupted system that hides its motives and its moves using many different tactics.
I know you are aware of that. And how about this one particular angle of the '08 crisis...? There's some reason to think that BOA was basically fooled/goaded into acquiring Merill Lynch by a small gang of bankers who basically loathed BOA's ceo bc he hadn't gone to an Ivy League school like they all had. None of them wanted Merill! They knew it could sink em. They shoved it off on BOA in a semi-forced manner.
I happen to think of that angle every once in a while just bc it reminds me how petty things can get even at the highest levels of business and gvt.
Thanks for breaking that down.
Laughable. $4B is drop in the budget bucket! It is by no means a "make or break" issue regarding dealing with the debt ceiling.
So nice to see you here again, Crawford! And Thanks for those thoughts.
Pure propaganda. "Useful idiots" write this stuff on behalf of, or at the behest of, TBTF institutions.
If there's one thing we fnma investors can take from following all this so closely, it is the very important understanding that there is a constant battle being waged by powerful interests to control "the narrative", and to make sure our heads are filled with propaganda. Please, everyone, at least be aware that that battle extends way beyond FNMA. That battle is fought on many issues, and on mainstream news sources, etc. The level, persistence, and scope of propaganda this nation has been subject to over the last 20 yrs or so is just not to be underestimated. It's been astounding.
Great stuff, but I don't think I was the one who asked you for this, was I? But I do know that you and I have had quite a few interesting exchanges about this very issue over the years here on this board! I really appreciate you posting it. Thanks.
I remember talking about articles in the newspaper about "empowerment zones" and "CRA" with a friend back in the 90s when this stuff was sometimes in the political news, and though I was young, I was at least wise enough to keep making the point that if people can't afford a house in the first place, then how can this help them ultimately?
Exactly what I've been expecting. How realistic is it that they would ask for summary judgement? Best lawyers in the nation (cough cough) right? Can't hurt to ask, can it?
About what, specifically?
Meed gvt out of health industry entirely. For example, if the health insurance and health care industry were truly a free market and not this mess of a gvt-centric, over-regulated system we have, then all sorts of innovations would arise. Think of how much $ there is out there in search of yield! It's almost a certainty that someone would get backing to run a new insurance company that ONLY insured people with pre-existing cancer, for example. Sounds too risky to insure, right? Wrong. For every level of risk, there is investment money looking to take on that level of risk. Depending on how well the company is capitalized and run, for the cancer patient, it might not even be as expense to get insurance as we would guess. Why do some investors prefer high yield bonds? They're specifically seeming high risk. A cancer-only insurance company would definitely attract investors. But only if the market were truly a free market. As it is, there are too many artificial, regulatory barriers to entry, established by a corrupt congress that was paid by bigger insurance companies to make sure new smaller insurance companies weren't constantly springing up to compete with the big one, and those barriers prevent new insurance companies from sprouting up all over the place.
And to nationalize student loans too, don't forget. Just look deeply into his background, which the mainstream media never did, and all will become clear to you.
Bingo. Exactly. My fear/prediction as well. I remain long and have been for years now. But it is very clear that that was the strategy all along: gvt/TBTF cabal decided to delay delay delay, and allow NO changes to be made via congressional action, and just hang in there until zero capital time happens, at which time they will save us all from certain destruction and appear on all the TV shows to display their infinite wisdom in "acting decisively" on this "important issue".
"It's not TrojanHorse. It's just RIGHT THERE!" Maybe listening to the words of one of the designers of the original ACA explaining to an audience that the bill is their intended/necessary transitional step towards eventual single payer will be more convincing than just seeing someone type "wrong".
Remember: Watt is tool of TBTF too! Bank of America is based in his district and always heavily funded his campaigns, etc. I think some of us (myself included) sometimes get too optimistic in thinking that Mel will choose to "dance alone" and forget that he was installed by Obama, who himself was fully on board with the NWS and also was on board with the plan to eliminate the GSEs entirely. Treasury is an arm of the executive branch, which the president controls. Obama could have easily told Treasury to stop executing the plan to eliminate the GSEs. He could have installed a pro GSE-release person as head of FHFA. But he installed Watt instead. Watt seems to be concerned about the GSEs' health, yes. But he has probably NOT forgotten the instructions he was given when he was appointed, which most likely were "make sure the wind down of the GSEs continues as planned and as smoothly as possible." I do not think, therefore, that Watt will actually "dance alone" ultimately. Why would he do that if otherwise, the plan to wind them down takes a HUGE step forward when the GSEs reach the point of having zero capital, and Watt was appointed with orders to assist in the wind down process?
New docs boost Washington Federal's chances, probably.
How could these documents not support the Wash Fed plaintiffs' case?
But you agree that infowars's GSE reporting's excellent, right?
Anyone who saw KellyEvans stop Bove&Rosner, or attempt to Stop VERY desperately and clumsily, from bringing up the gvt's theft from shareholders got a great glimpse of how the corrupt media works. The editor had obviously warned Evans to prevent any discussion of that aspect of FnF, and to steer it back always to the rather benign question about the GSEs getting involved in rental housing. My guess is that Rosner and Bove are not just familiar to CNBC viewers but are also two of the best GSE analysts out there, so CNBC had little choice but to call them to comment on the rental issue, even if CNBC was afraid they'd bring up the more serious issue of gvt theft.
Evans asking them to stick to the topic of rental finance really is just like the old "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" Joke. Fitting for a joke of a network, which is what CNBC is. Covering finance as if there's a horse race going on and making everyone state a "call" about market direction and size and timing of the move. Ridiculous stuff, really, aimed at a very specific audience of retail investors.
Good news seldom moves fnma, bad news does. But we should be used to this by now.
Interestingly, one might guess that the slight up move over the last few days might be due to insiders letting their sponsors know what docs are about to be released (the ones that were released today) and their sponsors covering or buying.
Good lord! Relax! I was merely throwing out a thought that if he's not on that list (ackman) and he was indeed out, then maybe he was selling slowly in order to dump the massive amount of shares he has. But i did not say he did it. I did not say there's any reason to panic. And I did say I should check his 13f to be sure.
I've been long here for over 4 years now.
Pershing Square is Ackman. He's out then? He had 10% of the company! He must've been on a slow dumping selling program over the last few months.
Of course I could be missing something, and maybe he's still in. I should check his latest 13F.
No Ackman on that list!?
Extremely interest last few sentences. I hadn't considered that angle specifically, but yes i can imagine the 2 majority judges simply received instructions on how to rule by the moneyed and political interests.
It was designed to fail so they could then make the case for a total "single payer system". I'm not sure how many people know that fact, but all you need to do is search for obamacare and trojan horse on youtube and you can see just one of the instances where the people who crafted the intentionally designed it to fail in about this time frame.
Original 2009 bill had zero gop votes, and gop was totally locked out of negotiating/crafting the bill. The Dem leadership even refused to show the gop a 300 page addendum just before the final vote.
Excellent point. Long before the original oral arguments were heard, maybe months before it, i posted something to the effect of saying that...i can imagine that a case like this, involving potentially many arcane accounting details, has a risk of going over the judges' heads. And i just posited that there's an interesting "gap of justice" there, where some cases might be so complicated that there literally is now way to ensure the law is followed.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily one of those cases. But I was not surprised when the oral arguments were heard and two of the judges were totally clueless about much of the substance of the case!
When did Corker confirm this?
What is the "McCain situation" you're referring to?
As 2018 approaches, wont pps decrease? With no congressional action and a bias towards allowing zero capital to happen, won't even this super low current pps start decreasing slowly, daily, like an option's value decaying as it gets closer to expiration?
Thanks for posting
No real hint of commons' fate under MBA plan, though. What do you think would happen to commons? It could be read as- commons remain in tact but are diluted by warrants.
Great post and link! Be sure to read the comments too. Excellent stuff as always from ZH crowd.
I was being very conservative just to get a safe picture of how capitalization would change. We hear a lot of talk about recapitalization, but we never hear much talk about the effects on capitalization a simple release to current shareholders would cause. If warrants are voided, we're looking at $100b increase in capitalization easily, for example. But that's in a simple release.
Great point re capitalization. If released to current shareholders, the increase in share price alone would provide a very nice increase in capital. Very roughly speaking, if a plain release happened with warrants exercised, say we'd be at $25/share in pps. That'd increase capitalization by $25 minus current pps times the number of shares. That'd be very roughly $23 billion. Am I nuts?
If Fed wants GSE reform immediately, it's good bet that what the Fed thinks/wants to be the end result will greatly benefit the TBTF banks.
Is millet/ginsberg court an exception? I listened to that session last year and I could tell that at least one of the three judges had absolutely no idea what all the accounting information meant, etc. her responses were basically tinted by subtle political remarks, too, or something. I'm not challenging your reply to the OP here on this topic but clearly there must be exceptions, and clearly sometimes it is possible that a judge can't/doesn't understand the details of the alleged crime when it regards financial or business transactions. That was in full effect with Millet (or was it Ginsberg?)!
Ok i remember that exchange. Mnuchin was saying that shareholders would basically be taking a first loss before any gvt guarantee would kick in. He was not necessarily saying in those few quotes that the ultimate reform of the GSEs would be done in such a way as to wipe out shareholders.
I don't think he is married to shareholders. Don't get me wrong. And it's disturbing to see him so open to Corker's suggestions. But at least he didn't say he wants to actively wipe out shareholders, as Corker has basically been saying.
didn't hear Mnuchin say Shareholders aren't a priority. Could you tell me which testimony in which he said that? Do you recall the congressman who asked him the question? Was there any context?
This makes perfect sense, seeing as how Buffet used to love fannie so much.
That's what the 11k documents will show! Absolutely. No doubt about it in my mind. Those documents -or I should say the totality of documents that exist, and unfortunately not necessarily the 11k documents that the "impartial" judge allowed the DEFENDANTS to choose from their pile of thousands of more documents to give to the plaintiffs- most certainly detail the entire money laundering scheme and backdoor bailout of those TBTF entities and the forced usage of a privately owned but politically controversial pair of GSEs as the whipping boys.
So Berkowitz is expecting court loss, basically? Did he say he expects this to go to SCOTUS? Or did he simply say that he expects a decision from the 6th circuit by the end of the year and that *if* that decision goes against him, he'll take it to SCOTUS?