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 see...this is what I thought you would say. It doesn't matter what evidence you would see....you mind is made up.
You claim there is no smoking gun but I get the feeling that even if there were a smoking gun you still wouldn't believe it. It's like an argument between a faithful democrat and a faithful republican. It doesn't matter what the data says or doesn't say...it doesn't matter who said what to whom...no one cares about anything but their side.
So, what kind of smoking guy evidence would make you agree with the vast majority on this board?
Could it be they are driving it down on purpose to shake out all of retail? And then when it is really low they will halt trading, give it a new name, and start trading again at $30.
This would allow them to achieve one of their goals which was to deny shareholders any profit.
The people buying now must be the people in the know - maybe it is Goldman so that they can pay off their latest fine?
Even the bi-partisan Congressional committee to review the financial meltdown disagrees with you.
Well, well...is she letting the cat out of the bag?
Makes no sense to create a new GSE when we already have 2.
You really don't know why housing would crash? Well, the 30 year mtg would disappear making the monthly payment A LOT higher (but for less months obviously). This would mean that the number of available buyers will be a lot smaller. So quantity of buyers decreases yet number of houses on the market stays the same. Therefore, houses would necessarily need to come down in price over time if they hoped to sell.
Now I see you intend to safeguard the 30 year mtg by moving it other entities? That makes no sense to me. You would be creating a new GSE. If you want a 30 year mtg, then we already have workable entities today: FNF.
Actually I would be good with that but it would crash housing. People would see their houses crash overnight.
If FnF lose access to the borrowing window then so should any bank that is also involved in the same business as the GSE's, you good with that?
The government cancels its warrants, returns the shares to the GSE's and then they are regulated like any other private financial services firm.
And, the congressional charter is ripped up and no more low income housing support.
You good with all that? I am.
I suppose then that this would mean that their congressional charters are also ripped up and thrown away? No more affordable housing contributions? No more 30 year mortgages?
You see, you can't have it both ways. If they are here to support social policy then they need and indeed deserve some kind of support from the government.
If that were to happen, housing would crash overnight. Housing is still way too expensive likely partly due to the 30 year being available and the associated credit. That would be a tough pill to swallow for a lot of home owners.
Personally, I could get behind either scenario but what I want to avoid is a scenario where they have no government support but also still contribute to affordable housing and support the 30 year mortgage. Due to the impact on current homeowners I do not see this a plausible scenario. The party that did this would lose all elections for the next few years.
It won't lead to us winning. We will lose which is why our best hope is the court. Even Obama will have trouble defying the court outright.
He left health insurance companies private but over time they will be forced to charge higher and higher fees. Remember most of the taxes haven't even hit us yet. Can he declare those companies as insolvent and take them into "conservatorship"? He can loan them money and take all their profits forever...if we lose the court cases it's over for them...
Like you I pray that he follows the Romney model...but I don't have all my eggs in this basket that's for sure. I haven't sold nor will I until the bitter end but I don't buy any more.
Obama has hoodwinked everyone on this - even Goldman. He knows full well that Congress will never do anything. He's just waiting for the next crisis which will come in 2018 at the latest and then he will declare the GSSE's insolvent and the government will end up becoming the equivalent of the GSE's. It will be Obamamortgages just like Obamacare.
So the banks will never get what they want...Obama has them thinking they will but they won't...Obama will get what he wants which is the Government dishing out mortgages.
So in the end, the banks will wish they had the GSE's back again...and so will you.
Actually, I agree with some of that. If the government took the GSE's into a conservatorship to avoid a larger depression then I have no problem with that but let's not re-write history and say it was because the GSE's were insolvent. Now it's time for the government to make good on its own stated goals of the conservatorship and return them to their owners.
Conservatorship is to preserve and conserve the assets of the companies and to "nurse them back to financial health". Conservatorship is not a new thing. Its not to return their assets to some third party who loaned money. It's always for the owners and even the US Treasury will tell you that the Shareholders are still the owners.
Your posts are interesting but you glaringly mislead people and you know it.
Who told you that the FHFA does not have to abide by the laws of conservatorship when it comes to fiduciary responsibility? What does the FHFA have to follow then? Just make it up as they go along? Actually, that is what they have been doing isn't it?
HERA does not invalidate the rules of conservatorship. Even on treasury's own website it is made clear that the conservatorship of the GSE's is the standard legal process with a clear definition. If it did what you claim then they would not have called it "conservatorship", they would have created a new term such as "special government asset status". Then they could make all the rules up as they went along. You cannot use a standardized conventional term in a law and expect it to have a new meaning. With that logic, they could also choose "receivership" and do something completely different - and if they did you would be OK with that because as you say, there is no fiduciary responsibility in HERA. The government can just do whatever they want?
You are correct when you say that the fiduciary responsibility of FNMA to its sharesholders was vacated when they were put into conservatorship, however, this responsibility was taken over by the conservator. The conservator is not there to "conserve and preserve" for the government or even for the taxpayers. A conservator is to conserve the enterprises for the OWNERS who are the shareholders. As the government has not actioned their warrants they are not even a voting shareholder at this time. Even treasury has stated many times that the owners of the GSE's are the shareholders.
All of Obama's allies are leaving him on this topic. Sharpton, civil rights organizations, mortgage groups, etc...So unless he wants to throw the next presidency to the Republicans he will do the right thing and recap and release.
Yup.
Here is one of the positions he held.
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/FISV/0x0x427316/99B5A116-49CF-4B5A-90F2-9658307A3E03/Lance_Drummond.pdf
I wonder if the G-fee's should be Zero?
I just read this article: http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_27954116/california-drought-court-rules-tiered-water-rates-violate
And if the GSE's are effectively nationalized then shouldn't the G-Fee's be zero because it is unconstitutional for the government to charge more for a service than it costs to provide it.
I realize that they are not nationalized but the government is acting as though they are. To me this is just like when a company hires a contractor and they work there for years...after some time they can claim that they are in fact an employee and receive all the same benefits of an employee.
So if the government is acting like they are nationalized perhaps this is a new angle to persuade them to stop?
That's very true and very sad. Today is all about relativism.
Yep, looks like it. Not.
That certainly is true.
What is also true is that BO has issued more presidential memorandum than any other president in history as a way to avoid issuing executive orders.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/31/claims-regarding-obamas-use-of-executive-orders-and-presidential-memoranda/
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/17/dont-worry-its-not-an-executive-action-its-a-memorandum/
For those that are not inclined to go through a PDF here are some salient parts:
F-F have not only repaid the $187 billion to the Treasury for the sins committed by bankrupt
private banks. F-F have also been generating massive profits due to higher lending rates relative
to the cost of their capital and operation. The housing sector has recovered because F-F have
refinanced the mortgage loans with exorbitant mortgage interest rates being levied by private
banks prior to the financial crisis.
By suppressing the truth underlying the real economic malaise, the ‘expertise’ in the CBO study
as well WSJ commentary turns out to be factually fallacious, specious and dangerous to the US
economy. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has found in 2011 that that the financial
catastrophe of 2008 was caused by the failure of the established experts in the academy, industry
and government to see, e.g., that elimination of F-F is dangerous to the economy. It is, therefore,
prudent to dissociate the failed expertise from fact-based government policy, such as: voiding the
unconstitutional profit sweep agreement imposed on F-F, unilaterally by the Treasury–the
government arm of the private banks–and recapitalizing and releasing F-F from conservatorship
with a clear mandate to not subsidize either the privileged or the unprivileged citizens.
After this paper was widely circulated among economists, the US Congressional leaders as well
as President, the idea of shutting down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–which was previously
promoted with wide publicity by the banking industry lobbyists–appears to be shelved if not
killed. Instead, the European Union has recently announced to import the US mortgage finance
model pioneered by the GSEs.27 This paper offers a sound economic theory supporting this
model.
You may wish to know about this and apologies if it has already been posted.
http://pro-prosperity.com/Research/Coalition%20of%20Borrowers.pdf
Check section VI and the last paragraph in section VII. Section IV and V also amazing. Heck, the whole paper is golden.
If his last paragraph in Section VII is to be believed then we are truly golden.
That looks great. I wonder why the Nasdaq site does not show the same thing?
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/fnma/premarket
Confirmed, I went to look, they indeed changed it.
I see, and shall you be the one who decides when an investor's return becomes 'greedy'? You will determine what each investor should actually get?
What do you care who makes what? I really could care less what Ackman makes as long as it is legally made. Life is not just about money.
You should be careful about this line of thinking because one day someone might decide that you should only have what you need and the results from your abilities should go to others according to their needs.
NO MEDICATION
Get back on it quick. Thanks.
This is what the article you linked says about McCain:
"The long-term reforms are to scale down Fannie and Freddie so their size is no longer a threat. And then privatize them. Get them off the taxpayer's books entirely," said McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
And this is what Obama said:
"Given the substantial role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in our housing system, I believe that some form of intervention is necessary to prevent a larger and deeper crisis throughout our entire economy," Obama said in a statement.
And you said they both campaigned to close down F&F. I don't see where they said that.
What about for those people that knew it was an illegal activity by the gov't and chose to capitalize on it? It won't be the first time.
Yes, I see that too. Reed is now a 'no' and Shelby is about to say 'no'. They will be lucky to get 10 votes now.
I thought he just said he could not support it?
I registered and it worked. Only tried once. I got the email right away. I'm already on the page listening to the funky Brookings music right now.
Just by looking at the panel, I'm feeling more and more optimistic.
I think Swagel is our friend. I think he's aligned with Millstein.
I find nothing negative on Calhoun, seems OK.
Fleming - nothing negative.
Malloy - I think he is against us.
I think that home values will go down.
Because....under CWJC, it is likely the 30 yr mortgage will go away and/or rates will go up. Either way, it will cause demand to go down - i.e. less people will want or be able to get a mortgage they can afford. Decreasing demand means lower prices. So home values will definitely go down.
They will continue to drop until people can afford them.
I would suspect that most people really do not realize this.
Markets should be closed today in Germany.
I'm still in, 50K+ on the commons.
It's a proposal from the plaintiff's only....not real.
I looked over the bill and it seems that it supports affordable housing goals (pg. 316-317 for example).
I see it like this....
I read recently that politicians don't want to be seen publicly supporting the GSE's - that it's "political suicide".
Imagine how it would look if there were hundreds of FNMA millionaires toasting the night away in Vegas? Could that make it to the local or national news?
I think they want to scare retail away as much as possible. I think we will either find relief in the courts or there will be "a deal" and shareholders will be compensated. Until that time they want as few taxpayers holding shares as possible. This was not meant to enrich individual shareholders like this.
They are OK with the hedge funds, institutions, etc...and those are the ones with the big buys. They can play that off as representing teacher/police unions and whatnot.
So, one day we will have a huge gap (with no opportunity to buy) up OR the shares will stop trading with the announcement of a settlement.
I really have this vision of Obama (yes Obama) saying that he does not want to see hordes of newly minted FNMA millionaires running around because of this. It would make him, his party, and the entire gov't look like idiots (oxymoron yes I know). He's probably agreeing to something now only on condition that they reduce the benefits to retail.
JIMHO.
That's good, at least they're not all out to steal our company.