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.
Just read Calabria's book.
Calabria acted exactly as Mnuchin ordered. Mnuchin didn't want to release the GSEs. Mnuchin got his orders from Wall Street. Trump didn't care.
But therefore it doesn't matter at all if Sandra & Yellen are "lazy" or not. Every administrative bureaucrat acts exactly as ordered.
LOL FNMAP meanwhile 3.47 +2.06%
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/FNMAP/overview
(also on meager volume of 632)
Don't you get it that these quotes are meaningless at best?
Sandra and Yellen are only deciding this pro forma. The "instructions" come from elsewhere.
Pump jewel JPS: FNMAN 3.76 +0.24 (+6.81%)
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FNMAN?p=FNMAN
(fwiw)
It's not so easy to close the capital gap of several hundred billion dollars.
Are you saying that you oppose the payment of the Lamberth damages because, in your opinion (and perhaps even objectively), it constitutes an "illegal distribution of capital"?
Sandra would give you a pat on the back for that.
I'm not suggesting that Carlos writes exclusively nonsense, or that he is a financial illiterate, but separating the useful from the useless is extremely challenging, as Barron4664 has already critically noted.
When an anonymous poster (KThomp) quotes legal sections, it does not matter if he is anonymous or not. The only thing that matters is whether his arguments are legally consistent. If they are, then the conclusions are objectively correct - no matter how much the "serious sleuth" whines about it because it doesn't fit his conspiracy theories.
A conspiracy theorist, on the other hand, cites legal sections and draws the wrong conclusions from them to "confirm" his pre-existing prejudices.
Lamberth would not have opened the trial if it had been clear from the outset that a payout would not be possible if the plaintiffs won. I strongly assume that Lamberth has thoroughly examined the legal situation in this regard. He's certainly biased, but he's not an idiot.
However, I still stand by my comment that something has changed psychologically and politically with the jury verdict. The verdict is a new elephant in the room that no one can ignore, certainly not in future trials. Will DeMarco, for example, dare to present the death spiral argument again?
The fact that there have been so many voices in the media recently calling for a release underscores my thesis of strong reverberations of the jury's decision.
Correct. Like OFHEO before.
According to KThomp19, the payment of damages is not a distribution of capital (in conservatorship) and should therefore be made. My opinion on this was obviously wrong (influenced by "Wise Man"). Even if you are "smart", you can still come to wrong conclusions sometimes. Admission of your own mistakes is a sign of wisdom.
Fools, on the other hand, persist in their stupidity, often accompanied by 💩emojis.
If Sandra can be launched into Earth orbit, perhaps even Elon Musk will start to take an interest in the GSEs.
In much the same way, Tim Howard has changed his mind. He is now also in favor of exercising the warrants.
It's sufficient if you read the bold
Why am I so bearish on common stocks? Because I believe that the separation of powers in the U.S. no longer works. In the case of the FnF debacle, the politicians, who are among the defendants, and the judiciary are pulling in the same direction. In addition, the FHFA, which tends to be an unconstitutional fourth branch of government, takes legal discretion and fills it with arbitrary power.
The end result is a crusty entanglement as hard as concrete. Injustice has been cemented in place. What the Framers once feared has come to pass and taken root. Even Trump can't (and won't) really shake it, unless it benefits him personally.
I think the chances of this scheming collusion (see the 4th letter agreement and the fatal Scotus opinion built on it) being stopped or even reversed by legal means are extremely slim.
I also give Barron4664's Charter lawsuit little chance, even if he is formally in the right. All previous lawsuits have shown that the judiciary gets off the hook with angle-advocacy sleight of hand. The courts' actions may be formally legal, but the end result is not objectively fair. The rights of existing shareholders have been trampled on since Hank Paulson, and these kicks are likely to go unpunished in the end.
This will be even more true when the conservatorship ends, which could be soon. Once the legacy commons have been diluted in the course of recap/release, no one will be able to legally undo it afterwards, not even Barron4664 and Co. with a possible charter suit. The best you can hope for is peanuts, as in the Lamberth case.
I am not a lawyer, and I openly admit that I was persuaded by Kthomp's detailed rebuttal that the payment of Lamberth damages is not a distribution of capital. And he is indeed right that my conclusions based on false assumptions are also irrelevant.
On the other hand, I am glad that now nothing seems to stand in the way of paying the damages.
What I still believe, however, is that the jury's verdict has political significance and could speed up the release.
Looks like you are in the wrong movie......
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/FNMAM/overview
I wrote "ex dividend" (as a metaphor). What I meant is the record date on which the shares must be held in your securities account in order to receive the Lamberth compensation and interest.
The 4th Letter Agreement of January 2021 is a stealth continuation of the NWS: The government gets more SPS LP for free - 1 to 1 for every dollar FnF earn - that doesn't show up on the official balance sheet, giving the illusion that FnF are building capital out of retained earnings.
The whole thing is so cleverly disguised that the Supreme Court in June 2021 could play dumb and claim "The NWS was ended".
Mnuchin and Calabria did a terrific 👺 job.
Nothing is automated except activities that cost shareholders money
I think FNMAS and other JPS now trade "ex dividend".
For me all approaches presented here are interesting, even if they come from conspiracy theorists or miracle healers.
The only important thing for me is that the arguments are logically sound.
What Wise Man, Rodney5 and Barron4664 have written all point in that direction.
Also, the FHFA attorneys successfully asked Lamberth for defer or judgment. Do do so, they had to present legally convincing arguments.
For this, the court needs rock-solid reasons. If these are not given, the press (Fox News?) should be informed. I also wonder how Hamish Hume would react.
A= FnF/FHFA
B= FnF shareholders
A defrauded B by breach of contract. A and B are in the U.S.
The court orders A to pay a compensation to B.
A can't pay because the conservatorship prohibits capital distributions. So A has a problem.
The courts also have a problem because they didn't see it coming. The judge should legally make sure in advance that the plaintiffs can be paid if they win - because this is all happening in the U.S. and its legal system.
The interesting thing about the Lamberth jury trial is not the trial itself, or the peanut payments to shareholders (which have yet to materialize). Much more interesting are the unintended side effects.
FHFA, the government, and Lamberth were apparently so confident of victory that they did not carefully plan for the consequences of losing. The dilemma they now face is that, for legal reasons, they cannot pay the plaintiffs (hence the oral motion by FHFA's attorneys). The payout would constitute a distribution of capital, which is illegal in conservatorship.
The scope of this legal dilemma is potentially far-reaching. It is even possible that the January 2021 Letter Agreement (Mnuchin, Calabria) must now be deemed unlawful because the SPS LP that the government granted itself therein also constitutes an unlawful distribution of capital (violation of the Charter Act). Not to mention that the SPS LPs are accounted for as off-balance sheet items.
As a result, the Letter Agreements could be on shaky legal ground as of the 2012 NWS. Lamberth is about much more than breach of contract and the peanuts to be paid as compensation.
In fact, the lack of a final Lamberth ruling may be good news in disguise. Perhaps the current rumor that the conservatorship will be terminated is more than just fake news from stock price pushers.
To get out of this legal mess, FHFA and the government could resort to some sort of preemptive defense. Ending the conservatorship may be the most elegant solution because it sweeps the legal mess of the past under the rug.
So I repeat the question I asked yesterday:
I wrote, as you correctly quoted: "What counts for recap/release is CET1."
What you wrote does not refute this statement.
I did NOT write that CET1 > 3% is appropriate, as you incorrectly imply.
I would very much like to see capital requirements lowered to 2.5% (HERA minimum).
As for your other insinuation that I did not understand the capital structure, I will not even comment on that.
Nice that Hamish Hume confirmed we are all still waiting. WTF?
The laws of physics, especially the laws of gravity, are the only ones you can really trust.
Because the law(s) of physics can't be bent.
My father passed away years ago.