onyx1

I did not think of this. ... the words balance sheet here represent their retained assets. I didn't read that initially either. Thanks investorG for pointing out a plausible alternative interpretation.

Trump will surely come up with an argument to combat the "GOP's GSE windfall to rich hedge-fund managers" narrative. Your example may be it.

I have a different take, one that I haven't seen expressed yet. Trump is unpredictable and he may indeed make the GSE's a talking point to beat up the previous administration, but his essential #1 priority is tax reform. His administration needs to make good on a campaign promise to produce the first major tax reform in over 30 years. Given the GOP failure on Obamacare, tax reform is now also the top priority, and possibly the only remaining source of survival, for the GOP congress as well. The hallmark of this administration and congress will be tax reform, and the metric for judging success will be the new corporate tax rate. The lower, the better, and Trump wants 15%. To complete tax reform and meaningfully lower corporate rates, CBO scoring is required. In this process, every dollar counts. This is where politicians scrape for every dollar of savings that can be assumed (without causing a media backlash), and find every possible source of future revenue. Both work to further the case for the lowest possible corporate tax rate. Would $100bln in extra revenue from selling the GSE warrants help achieve the top domestic priority of lower corporate taxes? Hell yes. Does the administration & GOP have a huge incentive sell the warrants? For sure. Will GOP leaders allow ideological hatred for the GSE’s to get in the way of a tax achievement essential to their survival? No, especially after their complete failure on Obamacare. For these reasons, I believe the $100bln revenue from a warrant sale is likely included in the projections of the tax reform plan currently being assembled by GOP leaders and the administration. They can’t disclose it yet. It is incredibily market sensitive, and the GSEs warrant sale is only one part of a much larger tax reform plan that isn’t completed. But the leaders know about it and the plan to sell the warrants. Of course, this may be wishful thinking from someone with a very meaningful position in Jr Preferred. But if true, it goes a long way in explaining the apparent overnight change in how members of the GOP view the GSE’s. Their sudden embrace of Moelis and shareholder rights gets them out in front of a future warrant sale. Now the interesting question: If the $100bln proceeds from an assumed warrant sale is part of tax reform plan to be scored by the CBO, how long can this super-sensitive information be kept under wraps in the Leak Capital of the World, Washington DC? Probably not long. Leaks may force an all-at-once public disclosure of a warrant sale. Ryan said the tax plan outline will be released on September 25.

$100bln tide shift.

10-Q then, and now.

Just finished it. An easy-to-read story about a a guy who made billions and had fun doing it. Some great life advice included.

The guy is a 35 year old man not a minor https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/05/cnn-will-expose-reddit-user-if-he-ever-trolls-again/ http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/cnn-staff-reeling-after-personal-info-leaked/ Because CNN says so? CNN prime time ratings are now lower than 40-year old reruns of Yogi Bear.

Unless there is such a large private capital cushion that the UST expects that the backstop will almost never be used.

By far the most practical and comprehensive plan I've seen to date. No other plan gives the Administration the money and delivers it inside the important 4-year window. Nice to see a workable paper from capital markets experts rather than lobbyists with a political angle. Private investors get their due as well. Incentive appear aligned. The only thing I see missing is comfort for IPO shareholders that a NWS can't happen again. They will need to have their property rights confirmed. Jr preferred will shoot shoot to 60 cents on the dollar if only Mnuchin would say three words: "I like it."

https://www.c-span.org/video/?428337-1/mel-watt-testifies-housing-finance-policy Start at 39:15 Tester asks Watt if anyone from Admin has talked to him about a capital buffer amount. Answer: Yes. Look at the Cheshire Cat grin on Watts' face when time ran out and he avoided having to answer the question about the size of the buffer Mnuchin suggested. My read is that Mnuchin supports Watt here.

Because to a non-libertarian, anything they consider good is a right and must be mandated by force if necessary and anything they consider bad is pure evil and must be outlawed by force if necessary. There is no grey area between must-do and must-not-do. "I'd likely do it, but I wouldn't force someone else to." is an incomprehensible position. To be completely honest, I consider forcing someone to do 'good' (or punishing him for not doing 'good') evil. It's what moralist's do to signal their personal virtue.

Impressively thorough. Thanks to contributors like the ROLG, my appreciation for the talents necessary to operate at the top of the legal profession have gone to the moon.

I've been a member since 2009. The biggest drawback is the requirement for two ideas every twelve months, or go in "inactive" status. This often forces those who want to remain active to post mediocre quality ideas. That's why I'm currently inactive, and can only see new ideas with a 45-day delay like non-members. There are some good write ups & discussions though, and even with a delay I find it a useful resource.

Laughed out loud.

NEWSFLASH: After January 20, 2017, it's no longer racist to make jokes about the President's intellect.

In honor of International Womens Day: http://710wor.iheart.com/onair/mark-simone-52176/watch-what-happens-when-a-muslim-15616059/#ixzz4apiI8Q3O

And then, you promote a social media story based on third-hand speculation that has yet to be confirmed/verified by a single person: Now who is the one with obvious bias?

This may be significant. http://gtbdirectory.com/2017/03/justice-department-turns-against-cfpb-in-constitutional-court-case/

Obama's uses police-state tactics and unleashes six different agencies to spy on the opposition party's candidate in a general election, and you blame the victim? Specifically what agencies? 1) FBI 2) CIA 3) NSA 4) Treasury 5) DOJ 6) DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) See paragraph #6: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=0 Also, "FBI, 5 other agencies probe possible covert Kremlin aid to Trump" http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html

The left made a case out of Russia for their own self-protection. Assured that the spying on Trump & Co. would eventually come to light after HRC lost, it looks to me that Obama's minions created this entire "Russian's hacked the election" narrative to distract from the real target of their spying. Public enemy #1 -- their political opponents.

Obama's uses police-state tactics and unleashes six different agencies to spy on the opposition party's candidate in a general election, and you blame the victim?

Great content. Thanks for posting this Luke.

I agree the money is all fungible. But as a political argument, it resonates with GOP opponents and the public much more than "Obama stole money from institutional investors". The Master Persuader is practicing his craft.

Yes Congress is a check on the President's actions...my sense is that Trump really shook up the republican party, and the republican congressmen don't know where their allegiances lie...so even if they did disagree with Trump, they are hesitant to really "check" him. But you're right: we're lucky enough to have a strong foundation with a gov't with checks and balances, unlike a blatant dictatorship or oligarchy. In terms of Obama's biases, my view is that, although the biases were there, Obama at least let his opponents have a seat at the table. Take the White House Correspondents Dinner (Trump just announced he will not attend). Obama attended and, admittedly, took blatant shots at his opponents, but he showed up and let them show up as well. Finally, in terms of the Press. To me it's pretty simple...regardless who is the President, we live in a democracy. He doesn't get to define what is "rational" enough to get aired. Freedom of the Press is pretty straightforward. Trump can argue that that the Press is unfair to him. The other side can rebut: Well if Trump thinks entire Press is out to get him, maybe it's because they have valid reasons. In some sense, it comes with the territory (as the saying goes, if you cant take the heat...) +1! Absolutely correct. I don't remember the Obama Administration taking any such stance with the press... The Obama administration literally spied on reporters and eavesdropped on family member's private phone calls. They used the threat of jail time in federal prison by naming one reporter a co-conspirator for doing his job. How do you not remember that?

Like any insurer, the GSEs need capital to absorb losses on the mortgages backing the $5 trillion in MBS they have guaranteed. They do need it today. Each quarter, the UST irresponsibly confiscates virtually all of their equity leaving them with no capital cushion.