Replies to post #425696 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Gmonkeylover]

You were generous. Without digressing, the M plan is better than being robbed and left for dead. As far as these hedgies go, the problem with your theory is that they are owned by super rich men who are connected to the political and banking mafias. No matter how smart and savvy businessmen they appear to be that would have you think they will keep going for the big payoff, doing so will step on powerful toes. The big fish at the top of the food chain allow these hedgies to prosper in their oceans. If they get too big for their britches, the great whites and the giant squid will devour them. They are smart enough to take a smaller gain and call it a win than risk offending the big fish who don't really allow rebellion.

And that's the problem we investors have in allowing the super rich and well connected to be our dog in the fight. We really need a private investors class action in conjunction with forcing our own independent criminal investigation through state AGs where grand juries hand down indictments of criminal charges. The political mafia is the law mafia so they will fight doing it for all the same reasons no criminal charges or investigations came from the 08 crisis. But there are tactics to force them to do their jobs or they must resign. Its hard to get justice in the financial segment without forcing the legal system to admit its not operating for justice. Exposing yh4 sham legal system exposes the sham political system. Getting real justice would involve bringing down the entire government, BAR, media, and the big financial players including the fed. Gse justice is the apocalypse.

[bcde]

TheDon3,

The problem is, Judiciary is independent on paper only.

When private citizen sue Gov, Judiciary invents some fancy doctrine or discovers some thing in common law or something in laws of British Monarchy to rule in favor of Gov bureaucrats.

Sovereign immunity is the biggest undemocratic discovery by judiciary that it found in laws of British Monarchy to help Gov bureaucrats to violate rights of citizens. The irony is, in UK, sovereign immunity can not be used to violate rights of private citizens but it is ok in US. US citizens got independence from British monarchy but not from the laws of British monarchy or not from inventive judiciary which still thinks that laws of British monarchy are still valid in US.

Richard Epstein eloquently says it - "From the time that I started to work on this issue, I always said that litigating against the government is like playing craps with loaded dice."

Plaintiffs want to settle with Gov knowing very well how Judiciary works. Already this has been seen in Perry appeals ruling. So Plaintiffs would rather settle with politicians rather than rely on well known judiciary.

[Sogo]

plaintiffs understand: gvt can partially getAway with this, at least. It's also possible the gvt might entirely get away with it. A realist like any fund manager should be will understand that even though his entire wallet was stolen, he might eventually only get his driver's license and a few credit cards returned to him, while any cash he left in there will almost certainly never be returned. Also, if the plaintiffs push too hard for total relief, they'll get squashed by the corrupt machinery of gvt ultimately, and maybe in some indirect way later on, when they least expect it.

Most of the major plaintiffs probably understand who they're really up against here, when you dig deep enough. They're up against the most feared and powerful entities and families in the world, if one accepts that the TBTF are behind this entire scheme.

I agree entirely with you. I wouldn't stop fighting and I wouldn't accept the Moelis plan bc it basically sanctions the theft and asks the victims to play nicely from now on while they continue to get robbed. But...if I was managing billions of other people's dollars, i'd have to pursue settlement talks with the gvt. There's just too much of a risk that the SCOTUS would shut down any hope for justice and compensation, as obviously wrong as such a decision would be.

Basically, we've been watching up close how "they" really CAN "get away with it." We've seen all the delay tactics, the lies, even perjury, secret documents, efforts to steal and coopt the GSEs' "secret sauce" and give it away to the TBTF, the corrupt media aiding and abetting, the incompetent judges, the self-dealing, the stealing of settlement money, of private property. This is how "they" do it! It's an entire web of tactics, some very subtle, some not. It's like a tightly woven fabric found in a bullet proof vest. But the purpose here is theft, not protection. The many layers of deception and corruption make their theft almost bullet proof, almost untouchable, it seems.

[955]

You have a point! Was never comfortable with the Moelis Plan as it doesn't go near far enough.

Can't help but feel we'd be much further ahead if CRIMINAL charges were filed.

Someone please kindly correct me if I'm wrong on any of the following things I mention below. :)

So a government bails out a company by providing it $187 Billion Dollars.
-In return the company issues the government senior preferred stock and warrants(79.9%) as collateral.
-Four years after agreeing to this deal, this government amends the terms so that it can take all of this company's profits.
-In addition to taking all of this company's profits, the government as part of this amended deal, takes all of the settlement money this company received from banks who committed fraud against it.
-This company has paid nearly $100 billion dollars extra back to this government on top of the loan they originally received.

As some of you can tell, there is many details I neglected to mention. I was being very generous in the above.

Knowing all of that however, why the heck would someone like Berkowitz or Ackman or even Paulson be so stupid enough to go with the moelis proposal which would:

1.) Not have the government pay back a single penny.
2.) Have additional capital raises and dilute the shares of common even more.
3.) Have the government exercise the warrants further giving profits to themselves while diluting the common shareholders even more.
4.) Not eliminating the senior preferred?

Lastly why in the world would berkowitz of fairholme come out with a statement saying their confident the government would settle and the case won't have to goto the Supreme Court if the above was the "blueprint"? If that's the blueprint why not take it to the Supreme Court?

Nobody in their right mind, neither commons nor preferred would ever settle for that plan. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If the preferred hedge funds plan is to make the maximum profit possible they sure as heck wouldn't go for that plan.