Replies to post #784711 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[LuLeVan]

Thanks Barron

Why do you expect the Secretary of the Treasury to act more ethically than the government as a whole? By the way Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury in the Bush Admin, saved his former employee Goldman-Sachs by first sacrificing Lehman (which later could have been saved with TARP as well) to scare politicians and then forcing Washington to bail out AIG (GS had subprime junk insured with AIG). It was all completely unethical and self-serving. Of course, Hank Paulson had to put his stock holdings (worth several hundred million) into a trust while he was Secretary of the Treasury. But I wonder what happened after his term ended. I guess the trust was just given back to him, and all the profits from his corrupt, unethical policies ended up increasing his personal net worth.

“Treasury Secretary John Paulson... Would he dilute the shareholders? Hrmmm..."

Absolutely. As much as he possibly can. He owns a lot of juniors but no commons. If he becomes the Treasury Secretary then a senior-to-common conversion would benefit him in an official capacity and a junior-to-common conversion would benefit him in a personal capacity.

[kthomp19]

He believes it is perfectly reasonable for a government official to act immorally and unethically and in the case of the above, criminally.

Once again you are completely misrepresenting my words. I did NOT say that I would WANT John Paulson to do these conversions if he were to be named Treasury Secretary. I said that I think it is plausible that he WOULD.

You then use this as justification to go on a string of childish personal attacks and name-calling. Perhaps you consider that to be moral and ethical, but it is still a very bad look.

There would be nothing criminal about a senior-to-common conversion. "Immoral" or "unethical" is merely your opinion. Your response to me said NOTHING about that type of conversion anyway.

But, the above is an example of using the gov to steal from us and give to someone else.

Existing common shareholders are buried underneath several hundred billion dollars of liquidation preference and dozens of billions of dollars of dividend preference. They have no economic value under the terms of the current agreements.

That means there is nothing left to steal from the commons. It was all taken in 2008 and 2012.

Therefore no government action in the future can be construed as stealing from them, again because there is nothing left.