muscleman

Crapo kept saying "I agree with Corker". I think at least I heard three times. And he asked something like "If you believe the current setup will shock the market, why would changes to the current setup not shock the market". So he is still trying to keep the status quo by first say, the current setup is not going to be bad for the market, and then saying Watt's changes will be bad for the market.

Thank you Tony!

Could anyone post a link so I can watch this live please?

I am looking forward to Bob Corker's reactions tomorrow, guys.

I agree. I just want to see if anyone here have any thoughts about that case. Tomorrow is Watt's hearing in Senate. I am sure Bob Corker would ask him why he still hasn't wound down the failed FnF, and he would gives answers like, I am watching the situations and would act responsively, which is like saying nothing at all.

http://www.breitbart.com/economics/2017/05/09/appeals-courts-aig-decision-doom-fannie-freddie-litigation/ What's your opinion on this one? It is written by John Carney so probably with lots of errors and biases. I think the difference is that FnF case is not about the original bailout. But will the ruling that "The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington said Greenberg's Starr International Co had no legal right to challenge the bailout because that right belonged to AIG, which chose not to sue." have any impact on Sweeney's case?

Would make an interesting poll. As far as me, I think I'd be more willing to trade in and out because I'm aware that without their legal help this story could go on for a long time. They're helping to push the envelope. But, to repeat, in the end the govt will get this right. I have full confidence in that. Our rights will be respected. If the election goes the other way, would you still have such confidence?

Actually I'd prefer that Ackman is not in. He has performed so many Jinx on a number of stocks he owns, just like his buddy Witney Tilden. In other words, my preference would be solid legal cases driven by other names but not ackman

Could you please show me the Paulson filings?

https://www.infowars.com/judicial-watch-court-rules-state-department-must-release-clinton-emails-detailing-obama-response-to-benghazi/ It looks like the DOJ is put on auto-pilot and the lawyers are still defending Hillary for Bengazi. Same thing is happening with FnF cases. Does anyone know why? Is Jeff Sessions not doing his job or are there too many old Obama era employees trying to defraud Jeff Session and still working for Obama? I guess we will know by May 20th how many of the 11k documents will be removed from executive privilege. I guess the number could be small.

"Ultimately, private capital in the mortgage market requires a transparent process that provides certainty and respect for the rights of investors, both in the current framework and in any transition to a future system." ? I interpret the language in the Blackrock proposal as discussing MBS investors, not GSE equity investors. I agree. I read the whole report and it mentioned investors 37 times. I think its emphasis on "investor rights" is basically this: I sold you subprime bonds and you later sued me in 2008. I don't like that. I should have the right that you never sue me even if I screw you. In addition, its investor rights emphasizes on a government explicit guarantee of the bonds, so that the bonds will never default, therefore "investor rights". Its evaluate on the various reform proposals are very biased. Writing vaguely about "Recap and release" but trying to sell the benefits of other crooked proposals without mentioning any of their problems.

Pulled this from the blackrock proposal. They are basically asking for government guarantee to continue with private investors being first at bat to take losses. This could work. What would this mean for existing preferred shareholders? Devils' in the details. MBA's proposal conveniently does not address how this "conversion into private entities" would work and how the preferred would be handled. Only the ICBA proposal addressed this issue and stated that the preferred should be exchanged.

That's a good point. Taking that into consideration, what's the point of creating a new company that does exactly what FnF is currently doing, and somehow the new company's bonds have to be exchangeable with FnF's bonds?

Good point!

You shouldn't be surprised at how the left/right split breaks down. Democrats want FnF recapped and released to continue their affordable housing mandate. Republicans (especially the libertarians) want the government charter and mandate rescinded. Efforts to kill FnF have mostly come from the right. Hmm... That's strange. Didn't the board members say if Hillary got elected, the FnF stocks would be trading at a fraction of today's price?

Anyone tracking the Pagliara hearing today?

I watched the arguments regarding FnF causing the financial crisis. 4:30 and later. I am surprised it is the Democrats who are insisting that FnF did not cause the crisis and it is the Republicans who said FnF caused the crisis.

The prospect of Congress getting involved actually scares me. That's where the players are who want to screw shareholders. Nothing would be done by Congress. Not in the past eight years. So the inertia will likely continue.

+1. So far there have been none of such discussions.

Thank you. I wonder what's the context there. They were discussing CHOICE act last night so I wonder how did they brought up FnF.

What are they yelling about? His prior twits are mostly about the progress of the CHOICE ACT. The only FnF related items are FHFA director's removal at will and some annual study about FnF "privatization" (Which is different from what we think privatization means. As another member pointed out, his privatization means killing and replacing FnF). Sometimes Congress has live streams of the floor. I wonder if we could see what's going on there. ::)

That was John Carney piece. Same jerk off that was at WSJ writing all of the negative articles. Not sure you can put much faith in that piece. John Carney has always had an issue with FnF and Carney has no sway Mnuchin. Not to mention that piece says $$$ didnt go to Obamacare when Mnuchin said yesterday the $$$ went to other parts of the gov. Sure cant follow dollar for dollar but Mnuchin just told Carney to F off. I wonder if Bannon and John Carney shares the same view on GSEs. If that's the case, then the fact that Bannon seems to be pushed out of the center of power is a good thing.

In light of his comment yesterday to MB that 'these companies exist only because of a giant line of credit from the Treasury' his position on the nws makes complete sense. It also makes complete sense that -because of that- he wants the companies to have their own capital, thus eliminating the needed reward to taxpayers. I only think this Joe Light piece came upon us because share prices were overextended, almost in bullish territory, inciting robots to go on a buying spree (they read technicals). Somebody somewhere is watching charts and technicals. It's been like that for years. Could you tell me why his position that FnF should continue making payments under NWS makes complete sense given he said these companies exist because of a giant line of credit? I wonder what's his true intention and if you think he flip flopped.

The rule of law and order is what this Trump admin has been campaigning about. The Obama admin has clearly ignored law and order and has done so much harm to this nation. We will see........

From Tim Howard: "The confusion over the “privatization” comment stems from the fact that different people use the same term to mean different things. Currently Fannie and Freddie are de facto nationalized companies. Secretary Mnuchin has said he wants to get them “out of the government.” Those who advocate their reform, recapitalization and release often refer to the end state of that process as “privatization,” meaning the companies no longer would be owned by the government but (again) by their private shareholders. But there also is a faction in Congress–of which Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is a prominent member–who use the term “privatization” to mean the removal of the attributes in the companies’ federal charters that other “fully private” companies do not have. I suspect that Mnuchin now is aware of the dual, and opposing, meanings of the word privatization, and thus won’t allow himself to be characterized as being for or against it." https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2017/04/25/narrowing-the-differences/#comments Thank you very much! This is very helpful! I also scrolled down and read some of his additional comments. Very good!