InvestorsHub Logo

Sogo

03/29/16 11:34 PM

#333107 RE: Patswil #333106

Without wiping out shareholders? Devil is in the details. They could do this with or without harming us as shareholders. I'd hope they would protect our interests.

Lite

03/30/16 4:08 AM

#333108 RE: Patswil #333106

So Mr Millsein, would this be after Treasury returns Shareholder money they illegally confiscated?

"By doing this, Millstein said, Treasury could then require GSEs use those reinsurance fees to build up reserve funds to protect in case of loss. "

“"The reinsurance contract between the GSE and Newco would require Newco to use its portion of guaranty fees—after operating expenses and reserves—to build capital to absorb potential future losses on its mortgage guaranty liabilities,” Millstein said. “The actual level of capital to be retained over time would be consistent with risk-based capital regulations for the mortgage guaranty businesses to be developed by the FHFA under HERA.” "

A bunch of hooey goes a long way to increase more lawyer and consulting fees. Just how much has Govt spent on lawyers to keep this charade going?

Ripcord01

03/30/16 7:32 AM

#333112 RE: Patswil #333106

The SEC would never approve a merger... at least it should not approve a merger.

The whole point of having Fannie and Freddie is to guarantee a competitive market for the home buyer. This is why Freddie was spun off from Fannie Mae in the 1970s.

Fannie Mae was turned into a private company to limit government manipulation.....which ironically is what is happening right now.

This is just another fluff proposal being pushed by a special interest group.

Another last ditch effort before recap and release

ada

03/30/16 7:58 AM

#333114 RE: Patswil #333106

This could be done without creating new companies. But I guess they want the public perception to be that they "fixed" the FnF "problem". As long as they protect the existing shareholders.

Mikey Mike

03/30/16 9:44 AM

#333124 RE: Patswil #333106

The problem is not within the GSE's...it was the deregulation of Glass-Steagall along with government requiring more affording housing for people who are collecting welfare...so the banks (generalizing the category) got creative to a point that it didn't work and now they're covering their tracks by blaming it on the GSE's after using them to bailout the banks for their mistakes and now using the GSE's as a scapegoat...until they've come up with a solution including the shareholders there's no proposal that will be looked at as a comprehensive resolution...fixing portions of the past government mistakes will not deter another bubble...this is what it is... they're not fixing HOUSING they're fixing housing so government can't meddle with it again...the GSE's are already fixing themselves via the government regulator (FHFA). All they need to do now is figure out a way to take on people with welfare poverty level to afford housing without causing a high risk to taxpayers...that's where the capital buffer issue is and who will back it up...by mixing up high risk portfolios with less risky portfolios then turn around and selling investors through the common securitization platform these portfolios are like covering the gap between rich and poor...it's a way of taking from the rich and giving to the poor by giving housing they can't afford to begin with...you can't just cut off the rotting leg from diabetes and throw it into the incinerator, so the government is trying to find a cure for the disease is what it is...kind of a blunt way to put it, but it is what it is...

Donotunderstand

03/30/16 11:41 AM

#333131 RE: Patswil #333106


1. This is different than the five wise men right?

2. OK - as written (or as I read it) both the GSE and the Newco use excess "money" to build reserves

3. That is logical for the immediate but over time who is making any profit and what would we own?

Patswil

03/31/16 11:43 AM

#333208 RE: Patswil #333106

*RICHARD X. BOVE: Fannie Mae – Bailout Lawsuit: Will Banks Ever Get a Fair Hearing Anywhere?
March 31, 2016

Bloomberg News published a comment recentlyentitled “Bailout Lawsuit.” The article had nothing to do with any bailout. It dealt with lawsuits filed against the government for the expropriation of property rights without just compensation in the diversion of the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the government.

Yesterday the “news” organization misquoted a prominent analyst’s remarks concerning the impact of low interest rates on bank profits. The analyst said that continued low interest rates would cause banks to lose $5 billion in future profits – i.e., there would be an opportunity lost. Bloomberg headlined that the analyst said that banks would lose $5 billion in profits due to low rates – i.e., an actual loss. Plus, the “prestigious guest” being interviewed said that the analyst was right, bank earnings were in trouble.

Bloomberg is one of many publications that constantly twists the news to sell the argument that banks are bad. It has been doing this for years. Michael Bloomberg, the owner of Bloomberg, lost more jobs in banking when he was mayor of New York City than perhaps any other mayor in the history of the entity.

Negative Psychology
My point is that there seems to be a felt need on the part of observers of the American banking industry to find reasons as to why the United States banking industry is as Senator Bernie Sanders (D; VT) describes it. Investors have bought into the process. Consider the following:

• The decline in oil prices is perceived to be good for America; but it is viewed as a terrible problem for banks due to potential loan losses. Forgotten is the fact that banks have a much larger consumer deposit and lending business than oil and gas position.

• The record sales of automobiles in the United States is thought to be very good for America — not so for banks. Banks are thought to be about to absorb large loan losses on sub-prime auto lending. Forgotten is the fact that the auto loan portfolios at banks will be providing years of recurring revenue streams that are very profitable.

• Rising home prices are believed to be good for America – not so for banks. Banks are believed to be dealing with another residential real estate bubble that will generate loan losses. The fact that the rise in home prices will resurrect home equity lending, a very large consumer loan business, for the banks is ignored.

• The maintenance of low interest rates is believed to be good for America. It is believed to be very bad for banks. Not considered is the fact that interest rates peaked in 2006 and have hit record lows since then. This has not impeded banks from producing record earnings.

• The recent stock market rally is perceived to be good for America but not enough to help banks.

• The expectation that bank regulation is to tighten further is believed to be good for America. It is not believed that this tighter regulation has positively impacted banks in any way. It is perceived that
o 1. Banks are just as vulnerable to failure today as they were in 2008; and that
o 2. The only impact that regulation has on banks is to lower their return on investment.

• The proliferation of private lawsuits against banks is perceived as being good for America. It is not considered that these lawsuits are impeding banks from providing their historic services to Americans.

Not Considered
The attacks on the industry have not considered these points:
• In 2015
o Bank revenues reached new all-time records
o Bank loan losses were well below average for the industry
o Bank net interest margins squeaked out a rise
o Bank profits were an all-time record

• In 2016
o Revenues are likely to be flat
o Loan losses will rise but not to the averages of the past
o Net interest margins are expected to rise
o Net interest income is expected to go up
o Capital market revenues will decline
o Bank profits could be the second highest ever recorded.

Also not considered is that the excessive regulation of the industry has severely negatively impacted capitalism in America:

• A government agency sets or tries to set interest rates
• A government agency sets money flows
• A government agency directs the use of funds through the banking system
• A government agency has meaningfully impeded fund flows in the relatively free capital markets.

Bank Stocks
The impact on bank stocks from the constant flow of negative news has been meaningful. Banks have plunged in value since July of last year. The S&P bank index was down just under 20% at the beginning of this week.

This leads to another set of issues that are not considered:

• Banking is primarily a domestic industry that has withstood foreign competition
• More than 99% of the bank stock in the country is owned directly or indirectly through funds by the American people.
• The banking industry employs over 2 million Americans.
• The banking industry lends $8 trillion to Americans.

Thus the continuous attacks by the politicians, press and others on this industry is a clear attack on the American people who own, work at, or borrow from the American banking industry – which is just about everyone.

It has also caused the miss-pricing of bank stocks. They are very, very cheap.