InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 20
Posts 1722
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/17/2009

Re: 955 post# 406693

Saturday, 04/29/2017 10:39:37 AM

Saturday, April 29, 2017 10:39:37 AM

Post# of 798358
After reading the 10-K's from 2004-2007, I come to a completely different conclusion that's undeniable to such an extent that in 2007 the company stated:

"We recorded net deferred tax assets of $13.0 billion and $8.5 billion as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, arising to a large extent from differences in the timing of the recognition of derivatives fair value gains and losses for financial statement and income tax purposes."

The reason DTA's have grown to the extent it has is through derivative contract losses. That's just a fact. Sure it's true, in a crafty sort of way, that derivatives didn't cause FnF to collapse. But over time a $3b loss here and a $5b loss there adds to an ever growing DTA account that now must be discounted due to tax law changes. How convenient for them to recognize that a DTA charge off was the issue and ignore the fact that the existence of the DTA was due large in part to derivative losses. That's called crafty accounting where I come from.