Replies to post #363151 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Lite]

Thought this was forced upon the board by Paulson and his legion.

You can put lipstick on a pig...

[chessmaster315]

You "skew" the facts, Big Yank. The most important fact is that EVERY BOARD member resigned at the same time. Does that not seem "curious" to you? How many companies do you know where EVERY SINGLE Board memeber resigns at the same time?
There had to be a reason. It wasnt health reasons..there had to be pressure coming from somewhere because being a FNMA board member of a 3.1 trillion (enterprise value) company is significant. Even a captain goes down with the ship.
Of course, the government keeps all this a secret. Why do you think that is? Who are they protecting, FNMA board members? I dont think so. If this was legit, the government would not be afraid of releasing these documents. Crooks hide, honest people are open.
The government implicates their own guilt by not releasing documents. You see, if it was all about a crooked board, or crooked board member, the government would simply release the documents, and prosecute that board member.
And, the 100 billion line of credit was not a reason for board memebers to resign. Companies get lines of credit all the time, and many from the government, especially TBTF banks, when they get money. TBTF banks give their board members mega bonuses whenever they take US government bailout money. They "saved" their company.

[chessmaster315]

Hank Paulson, assured investors that Fannie was sound and in no need of a bailout.
This is about the time fannie was put into cship by Paulson.

This is explained by Wiki:
Hank Paulson quotes:
Notable statements[edit]
In April 2007, he delivered an upbeat assessment of the economy, saying growth was healthy and the housing market was nearing a turnaround. "All the signs I look at" show "the housing market is at or near the bottom," Paulson said in a speech to a business group in New York. The U.S. economy is "very healthy" and "robust," Paulson said.[22]
In August 2007, Secretary Paulson explained that U.S. subprime mortgage fallout remained largely contained due to the strongest global economy in decades.[23]

In May 2008, The Wall Street Journal wrote that Paulson said U.S. financial markets are emerging from the credit crunch that many economists believe has pushed the country to the brink of recession. "I do believe that the worst is likely to be behind us," Paulson told the newspaper in an interview.[25]
On July 20, 2008, after the failure of Indymac Bank, Paulson reassured the public by saying, “it's a safe banking system, a sound banking system. Our regulators are on top of it. This is a very manageable situation.”[26]
On August 10, 2008, Secretary Paulson told NBC’s Meet the Press that he had no plans to inject any capital into Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.[27] On September 7, 2008, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went into conservatorship.[28]
On November 18, in testimony before the United States House Committee on Financial Services, Secretary Paulson told lawmakers, “There is no playbook for responding to turmoil we have never faced. We adjusted our strategy to reflect the facts of a severe market crisis always keeping focused on Congress's goal and our goal – to stabilize the financial system that is integral to the everyday lives of all Americans.”[29]
On November 20, 2008, during remarks at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Secretary Paulson said, “We are working through a severe financial crisis caused by many factors, including government inaction and mistaken actions, outdated U.S. and global financial regulatory systems, and by the excessive risk-taking of financial institutions. This combination of factors led to a critical stage this fall when the entire U.S. financial system was at risk. This should never happen again. The United States must lead global financial reform efforts, and we must start by getting our own house in order.”[30]

[whipstick]

Hey Mr. Yank. Sorry to thread-jack so to speak but this topic is relevant to the warrant discussion.

Wondering what you think Ackman is thinking positioning himself in the commons over the preferreds (as I know you are more bullish on the pref than the common)?

I guess he's expecting to settle at some $ value that is a greater change from the ceiling of Par ~$25/pref (+damages) from the levels back when her purchased his common for pennies, which would still equate to a $ price somewhere in the $20s perhaps?

Are you thinking he sues when the gov't attempts to exercise their warrants?

Just curious as to what you think he's thinking going common over pref.

thanks