Jump to content

Grenville

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,077

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Grenville

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/trump-executive-order-repeal-dodd-frank-fiduciary-rule-2017-2-1001721502

     

    I found another link that has the same text as you posted:

     

    Cohn also told the Journal that the executive order will direct the Treasury department to change Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage lenders. Additionally, Cohn said that the executive action would not impact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created as a part of Dodd-Frank.

     

    I guess we wait and see what these executive orders have to say.

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    http://pulse.com.gh/bi/finance/trump-is-reportedly-going-to-sign-executive-orders-on-friday-to-repeal-two-huge-wall-street-regulations-id6162623.html

     

    "Cohn also told the Journal that the executive order will direct the Treasury department to change Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage lenders. Additionally, Cohn said that the executive action would not impact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created as a part of Dodd-Frank."

     

    Trump's calendar shows he plans on signing executive orders today at noon.  Buckle up.

    (my emphasis added on "executive order" in quote above)

    The text in that article has changed from what you posted above to this:

    Cohn also told The Journal that the administration plans to direct the Treasury Department to review the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage lenders. Additionally, Cohn said that the executive action would not affect the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created as a part of Dodd-Frank.

     

    Anyone have the earlier version of the article?

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    brown asks mnuchin for clarification on gses:

     

    Interesting, just looked at the actual document linked in the twitter post…it looks strange. The second page doesn't look like it matches the first page in scan quality and the second page questions restart the numbering from 1. I also couldn't find a link to the document from Brown's website, maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place.

     

    just some comments on the strangeness of the document. I hope we get some clarifications from the courts soon.

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Just listened to the call.

     

    The thing that stood out for me was that plaintiffs have not seen any of the 56 documents sampled and may get a better idea on Monday on when they can see them. This just shows what an uphill battle this has been and will continue to be.

     

    In relation to the other 11k documents or more, in the motion to compel there was a requirement that the defendants go back and reexamine their privilege and update the logs to be more accurate. This just adds to the continued delay tactics that the government has used and will continue to use to slow this thing down. If and when plaintiffs get access to those 11k documents then they have to sit down and go through them which will also take time….

     

    Sweeney's ruling is a huge win along with the motion to pay legal fees, but this continues to be a huge uphill battle that continues to take valuable time.

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I had a question for the board regarding the motion to supplement the record from 5/25/16 (Document#1615013). The supplement was for documents where protected information designation was removed. Both sides put forth arguments around the motion, but we haven't heard any response from the court regarding the motion. Is this normal, i.e. no response means that the court is ignoring it and it's not important to the decision? Should we expect a response to this motion before a decision?

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    "All documents should be in for them to make their case, no?  Any speculation on how long?"

     

    this is a very complex case, with at least three major claims (treasury has no authority to purchase, fhfa failed as C, and there was breach of contract/fiduciary duty; you can even add fhfa subject to direction of treasury), and a host of arguments presented by these claims.  it would not surprise me if this case is decided as late as october.

     

    in addition to mere complexity, you can add the notion that august is soon upon us, and things judicial move very slowly then, and i expect there to be at least some effort (and therefore time) devoted to trying to get a unanimous court on at least one of the claims.  i would expect each judge to write an opinion, or an individual concurrence or dissent.

     

    and while i personally think only millet was interested in the last set of questions, the briefing just received by court needs to be digested and, for at least one judge, weighed.

     

    Even for Sweeney, it has been taking so long and still not yet ruled on the motion to release the documents. Not to say three judges in the appeals court.

    I am sure it is Millet pushing hard on these questions and doing a favor for Obama.

     

    Appreciate all the discussion on this thread. My growing worry is that no judge wants to be the first to rule against the government in the GSE cases. The sums of money involved are large as well… I hope the delay and additional questions are just to be thorough. Judge Thapur decision to remove himself was quite a surprise given his vocalness to rule quickly. I understand the conflict of holding shares, but it seems like a stretch to suddenly realize you own them and then just recuse yourself.

     

    Hopefully I'm wrong and we get some decisions in some of these cases instead of either delays or additional topics to brief.

    California Dept of Insurance statement on Berkshire Subsidiary

    in Berkshire Hathaway

    Posted

    Thank you for posting!

     

    I'm curious to hear Berkshire's response. Seems odd not filing the policy with the state commissioner...

     

    Found this article in the WSJ today:

    "Regulator Faults Berkshire Hathaway Insurance Unit"

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/regulator-faults-berkshire-hathaway-insurance-unit-1466444329

     

    “The company strongly disagrees with the commissioner’s decision and intends to vigorously pursue all legal avenues,” said a person authorized to speak on behalf of Applied Underwriters.

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

     

    That's surprising. How did this happen? And how did government AGREE with Robinson to release these documents?

     

    From what I remember, David Thompson said that the documents may have been referenced in sealed motions before the MDL and therefore caused some pressure for the government to release them. Another angle he mentioned was that given that Sweeney released the previous set of documents for the Merits panel and her tone in that order may have led the government to release here. He also said that he can't be sure on the governments reasoning.

     

    If the call is recorded, I would just listen to his response, because the question was asked.

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    this appears to be the full listing of the documents released last week:  http://fanniefreddiesecrets.org/category/court-documents/

     

    EDIT see http://fanniefreddiesecrets.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/FHFA00012792_Redacted.pdf which i havent seen referenced before.  puts to lie the death spiral narrative

     

    EDIT:  telephone CC with cooper & kirk: 

    Date: May 24, 2016

     

    Time: 4:30 PM ET

     

    Host: David Thompson, Managing Partner at Cooper & Kirk

     

    Subject: Recent developments in GSE litigation, including newly unsealed documents.

     

    Participant Toll Free Dial-In Number: (866) 547-1509

     

    @cherzeca Thanks for the above links to the documents and the call.

     

    The call answered some of my questions including the one about why the government agreed to unseal the documents ahead of a ruling.

    FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    What's interesting to me is that Berkowitz's e-mail said 53 documents were released into the wild. But we've only seen 27 pages from Morgenson. So... where are the other documents? Will we see another article in a few days?

     

    I was wondering about the rest of the doc's just now.

     

    I called Fairholme just now and they don't have all the documents yet and said they may put them up on their site when they get them. I wish they would just put them on pacer and make everyone's life easier.

     

    Also, I assumed Sweeney ordered the unsealing, but looking at the order it looks like Robinson and the US came to a joint agreement to remove the protective designation.

    Withdrawal_of_motion_5-19-16.pdf

    This woman is really amazing!

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    It's been interesting to see how things developed with Theranos. If they don't suspend her license, I'll be disappointed in the system.

     

    I would have thought the board members would be on top of some of this, but I guess they were just there to give her credibility. I figured someone with public company experience like Richard Kovacevich (WFC) would have done some diligence.

×
×
  • Create New...