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.
Corker is no Trump.
There's a share my lord, gettin' cheap enough to buy again...
What part of it don't you buy? They say that the GSE's need to make more than $23 Billion in the quarter that taxes are lowered (if they are lowered).
If they make less than that they will have a negative net worth.
Is this correct?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/time-to-fix-fannie-and-freddie/article/2007465
In summary, if corporate tax rates are lowered as anticipated and if profits are less than 23 $billion then they will need additional funds from the treasury.
So, no sweep then?
Should be stickied and updated from time to time. It would help a lot of people out who have not been following this as closely as others.
It's funny because I also feel he might do that. It's the one thing he can do on his own. It would send a strong signal to all concerned that things are going to change.
Without the NWS, the whole rationale for keeping them in the conservatorship would be basically null and void.
It's one thing he can do to guarantee that changes will go in the way that he wants - i.e. getting the government out of the picture.
If he wants to end this somehow, then he needs to light a fire under congress. Congress would not be able to complain about it because they can't say that the GSE's have not already paid back everything that was loaned to them. If they complain then they would be admitting that it was all only about the money to begin with.
If he ends the sweep then Watt is suddenly forced to give some kind of direction to the GSE's as to what they should do with the money. With the sweep ended, I believe that Watt could, by himself, end the conservatorship. I don't think he would do that but I do believe he would have the ability to do so whereas right now he cannot due to the sweep (i.e. terms of the 4th ammendment) which must be taken care of with Treasury before he can end the conservatorship.
So if Mnuchin ends the sweep, he pushes the issue to Watt and the Congress. Without clarification from Watt the GSE's would simply accumulate money I guess.
I bought more yesterday @2.75.
To be slightly more precise, I believe the link is that the FHFA has a single head that is independent. For it to be constitutional, all agencies with a single head must report to someone and therefore are not independent.
If you want an independent agency, then you need to have it led by a board and not a single person.
Exactly. He's saying we don't need FnF but we need something just like it.
LOL
Why not just keep it then?
This cracks me up.
He is saying that we don't need FnF but we need something that does essentially what they do.
Does that make sense to anyone? If we have something already that does what we want, why not just keep it?
That's what I meant technically though I assume Trump could also ask Mnuchin to do it.
No one. He's independent. He can only be removed for cause.
That's true but they can end the sweep.
That's exactly where I am too. Contemplating buying more.
Ha! I did the same thing with Visa and Netflix. This time I am holding firm 'till the bitter end.
I agree too. If they did not select Trump then who else could they have picked? All I heard on the news for the past year was TrumpTrumpTrumpTrumpTrump. If they had picked anyone else it would have made Time a laughing stock.
Let's hope Trump does well for everyone's sake.
You are focusing on the word "commitment fee" but it was for the "consideration of the commitment from Treasury" meaning if you give us these SPS and Warrants then we will back you financially.
For it to be a valid contract there must be give and take. The word "consideration" is key.
Then Fannie Mae said we will assign "a value of $4.5 billion to Treasury’s commitment".
I don't know where the word collateral came from but its the same thing from what I can tell. The SPS and the Warrants have to be worth something at that time otherwise the contract is not binding.
So those SPS and Warrants are worth 4.5 billion according to that document at that time.
OK, that was funny.
Well, that settles it. Now its just a matter of seeing the details.
REALLY tempted to go all in.
But, I've been burned before so I think I will just stick with my 60K shares and see where this leads.
Looks like people are acting on what they actually believe to be true, i.e. that this was all orchestrated by Obama and his administration and that Trump will drain the swamp. People want to cash in by buying now.
I'm not really surprised but I thought I would just ask to see if there were any other reasons out there like a court decision somewhere that I missed.
Thank goodness!
OK, well, that is what I was trying to get at.
If it is tied to the elections then the current status is clearly tied to Obama and no one could honestly claim otherwise.
I have always said that if Trump wins they will be released because there is no way Obama would hand this over to Trump.
Yes, for years since it was at .25 cents.
Seriously, why is it up?
Is it tied to the election somehow?
I had to reply as I live in Belgium.
We are a social mess. No one believes the pension system will survive by the time we retire. We're all fearful of the future due to the debts that have been racked up by previous generations.
Taxes go up and up and we get little for it.
Health care is not completely covered. We have to top it off with a kind of company health insurance.
I would consider Belgium to be prosperous, yes, but on borrowed time.
If Hillary wins - no change. If Trump wins, Obama releases them before Trump takes office. He's not handing cash cows to the republicans.
No, I think you are wrong. MBS is an asset backed security which puts it with the secured creditors group (your # 3). The asset is the the mortgage on the dwelling.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mbs.asp
http://www.finra.org/investors/mortgage-backed-securities
http://www.ssctech.com/eBriefings/eBriefingArticle/tabid/597/Default.aspx?A=59
Please provide proof of what you state.
"Wind up" inherently involves a company whose doors are closing and whose operations are ceasing as a going concern.
e.g. we need to wind up our overseas operations.
"Wind down" inherently involves a company's operations that need to be reduced for some extrinsic reason. What's not clear is the level to which it was intended to be wound down.
e.g. we need to wind down our chemical line due to falling demand and focus more on our widgets.
JMHO
Ask 10 people for the definition of "wind down" and you will get 10 different answers.
Wind down means what exactly? Wind down to nothing? Wind down to a lower level - how much exactly? It's an ambiguous term that really means nothing.
They could have 100 whitepapers with their "intent" but all of that is meaningless. They chose conservatorship but really wanted receivership. If they can get away with this that means that any company in the future can start a conservatorship, strip a company of all its assets, and when the share price is low enough start receivership.
They were bound by law to rehabilitate the companies. No one cares what Stegman or whoever wrote in some whitepaper.
They also said he would never win the nomination...looks like its about to happen so never say never.
He's a nimble navigator.
It's not subject to review as long as it's either receivership or conservatorship - not both. They chose conservatorship but now they have created a situation where it is not possilbe for the entities to become solvent.
So now they are acting outside of HERA.
I can't wait 'till we're back to 100M vol like the first run.
He did. More than once.
But he did have power apparently...
Didn't Paulson force Fannie to launch that new equity prior to the conservatorship? Isn't it in his book?
I'm actually starting to believe this now. He will win the Republican nomination that's for sure. If they try to steal it for Rubio then that hands the election to the Democrats because Trump could always run as an independent so they will have to accept it.
On the Demo side, the youth are all going for Bernie. The establishment are all going for Hillary. Their best chance against Trump would probably be Bernie IMO but they will more likely select Hillary. Once they pick Hillary, many of Bernie's supporters come over to Trump.
If there is a debate between Hillary and Trump I expect Trump to demolish her just like he's demolished everyone else.
When you actually look past the rhetoric and see Trump's interviews with mainstream media types he has a pretty moderate platform. He seems more like a Democrat but with Nationalistic tendencies.
It's a strange election cycle and maybe this will lead to a new paradigm but I have to thank Trump for taking down the Bush dynasty. If he can now take down the Clinton dynasty I would be very happy.
I also got that he never signed up to run the GSE's and that his job is supposed to be a regulator. My guess is he is sick of doing double work.