onyx1

Oh really? http://www.fidererongses.com/15-facts-about-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/gse-liquidity/

how is trump going to find new shareholders to put up serious capital if the old shareholders are screwed? Same as with any other recapitalization or bankruptcy. I think that's a much harder sell. This isn't a typical bankruptcy/insolvency where shareholders hold responsibility for the management they put in place. This is instance where the government, in a crisis, took over control of the company under false pretenses and then unilaterally re-wrote the terms of the agreement of ceding control to screw the shareholders to the maximum amount possible even though hindsight showed shareholders never needed the government to step in to begin with. If the gov't can simply take a company into conservatorship based on concerns of what COULD happen, and then unilaterally turn that conservatorship into a liquidation when that company is still solvent and incredibly profitable, and then keep all those proceeds for itself without ever compensating shareholders, then you have a recipe for there never being a private solution to a crisis/potential crisis again. What shareholder is ever going to take the risk if the government can simply step in and renegotiate terms to sweep all profits to itself with no legal review whatsoever? What shareholder would step into such a politically polarizing company with the knowledge that the administration could simply steal it back at the next hint of any problems whatsoever. This really concerns me as a precedent for any future crisis, nationwide or company specific, where the gov't can simply absorb a company based on assumptions that never play out and never owe shareholders anything for it. This precedent will bring instability to the banking system, and any other federally regulated industry. In a future economic downturn, capital will flee at the first hint of distress if the regulator has the unilateral power to nationalize for flimsy reasons. The concept of a conservator was created to be a cushion against a hard landing during inevitable economic cycles. It worked well for generations. Take it away and markets will tailspin when they would otherwise be calm. I can't imagine an administration of businessmen will allow this precedent to stand.

Brown: "Conservation is not a synonym for nationalization." With 30 years of distressed banking experience, Mnuchin spent his entire career with a practitioners' understanding of the fundamental difference between a conservator and a receiver. He has experienced it first-hand. He's negotiated with the FDIC and valued banks in conservatorship based on the statutory directive to "preserve and conserve". Will he standby and allow the rule book used for 30 years to be changed by 2 DCC judges? Not if he can help it. If this ruling becomes precedent, the idea that the FDIC can recapitalize distressed banks with private capital in the future goes right out the window. Every distressed bank may as well jump directly to receivership since the market will value banks in conservatorship as nationalized. The common, preferred shares, and debt securities of even slightly distressed banks will now be harshly punished as market will equate the risk of a conservator with nationalism and an unrecoverable goose egg. Mnuchin’s not a bureaucrat. He's sees the world through the lens of a distressed bank investor protected by the rule of law. To rehabilitate the GSE’s and maintain a well-functioning banking system, the nationalization risk needs to be eliminated. I expect Mnuchin to lead the way in proving to the investment community that this is not a risk.

Three awesome beagles. They bring so much joy, I can't imagine life without them.

on feb 8, fhfa filed with the court opposing fairholme's request to present more discovery materials on feb 9, counsel for usg agreed to remove "protected information" designations pretty inconsistent, no? sessions was confirmed feb 8 interesting, hardincap. let's see how this plays out. i would think DOJ becomes less adversarial, but that may be wishful I'm left wondering if Session's DOJ will soon lead the Perry panel toward a reversal. Sounds crazy, yes. But a ruling against the government would: 1. provide political cover against the "hedge fund giveaway narrative", 2. blunt congressional opposition, 3. speed along a settlement, 4. allow a jump ahead toward recapitalization negotiations. This whole issue is complicated by the looming cut in the corporate tax rate, which would reduce the GSE's DTA valuation and force a government draw. A quick resolution of the mortgage giants would avoid this scenario, and a Perry reversal would move things along.

I've been waiting 5 years for this day.

According to this, another vote is scheduled for tomorrow. https://twitter.com/Zachary/status/826539055852748800

I wonder who is going to get the final rose?

Agree. We are in the mists of a historic political tsunami, the magnitude of which we will probably never see again. It is the main topic of discussion around the world, and the affect of the power shift on businesses everywhere will be profound. It's so interwoven into every institution, that to think that it can be ignored is unrealistic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html Under Obama, Yates was asked to break the law. She did. Under Trump, Yates was asked to enforce the law. She refused. Not a hero. Her 15 minutes are over.

I have been trying to find that out unsuccessfully. Hatch did say he was going to try to schedule another vote later today. there is apparently a rule that says a committee vote cant be held w/o a member of minority. makes sense to avoid majority action secretly in middle of night. but doesnt make sense to give minority right to postpone vote indefinitely. but dems are now holding sessions committee vote hearing, so i guess they will show up for mnuchin vote at some point. I agree. Further delay will undermine the one fight they most care about, the SCOTUS appointee.

The left's hysterical overreaction has set the bar so low that all Trump needs to win over another term is not be Hitler. He isn't bothered by the the Hitler/facist comparisons, and probably hopes they continue. #MasterStroke You're starting to understand. Keep going, and you'll soon be miles ahead of the all the "experts" in the media, and DC politicians.

The left's hysterical overreaction has set the bar so low that all Trump needs to win over another term is not be Hitler. He isn't bothered by the the Hitler/facist comparisons, and probably hopes they continue.

First the green card reversal, and now this. Loosening. The masterstroke is playing out just as just as Scott Adams predicted. "Trump administration to allow 872 refugees into U.S. this week." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-refugees-exclusive-idUSKBN15E2U9

You mean the cartoonist who correctly predicted a landslide win by Trump, one year before it happened? Landslide!? Lol... "Guy who predicted Trump" is like "Guy who predicted financial crisis". Just because they got one right doesn't make them fortune tellers and sure doesn't make their other views valid. But they do love harping on that one time they got it right. It's interesting how the narrative changes when you repeat something enough. Trump called his election win a landslide. The data shows anything but. He won key battleground states by 0-2% margins. And on top of it all, he lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, or 2% of the total voting public. I concede that Hillary won the imaginary election where popular vote counts. Give her a participation trophy. Seriously, if the popular vote mattered do you really think Trump would have run the same campaign? No, he would have shifted his energy to the big cities and completely changed the outcome.

You mean the cartoonist who correctly predicted a landslide win by Trump, one year before it happened? Landslide!? Lol... "Guy who predicted Trump" is like "Guy who predicted financial crisis". Just because they got one right doesn't make them fortune tellers and sure doesn't make their other views valid. But they do love harping on that one time they got it right. He called a win against 17 Republican opponents, when the media said he would never win. He called a win against against HRC, when media said he had almost no chance. To me seems pretty long odds for a fluke. If you'd rather put your trust in CNN, be my guest.

What are the chances of being killed by an AR-15?

You mean the cartoonist who correctly predicted a landslide win by Trump, one year before it happened?

Scott Adams teaches you about Trump's latest masterstroke, immigration. "[Trump]...just solved his biggest problem with immigration and you didn’t notice." http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156532225711/the-persuasion-filter-and-immigration

Yes, the all powerful media is out to get you. Keep swallowing that White House propaganda + butthurt. That's the attitude that got you Trump.

The headline should be: "Buffett attacks his self-created strawman." I've never met a serious person who is against legal immigration. Well, the new executive order on travel restrictions also includes green card holders for now. So those that have already gone through the legal immigration vetting process are now being held at gates and borders. Cheers! "...for now." A temporary measure until vetting system is put in place. Unfair you say? Remember, Obama did the same with Iraq refugees in 2011. Media outrage at the time = zero. http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/ Obama didn't ban green card holders, so your point is irrelevant. Too bad this guy didn't have a green card. From 2011: "One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said." Media outrage then, zero. Media today, hair-on-fire.

The headline should be: "Buffett attacks his self-created strawman." I've never met a serious person who is against legal immigration. Well, the new executive order on travel restrictions also includes green card holders for now. So those that have already gone through the legal immigration vetting process are now being held at gates and borders. Cheers! "...for now." A temporary measure until vetting system is put in place. Unfair you say? Remember, Obama did the same with Iraq refugees in 2011. Media outrage at the time = zero. http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae#2008_.E2.80.93_crisis_and_conservatorship The treatment of GSE shareholders under both Republican & Democratic regimes has been equally loathsome.

The headline should be: "Buffett attacks his self-created strawman." I've never met a serious person who is against legal immigration.

...and I'll say it again: Facts and logic don't matter in politics, even among the most rational.