rros

a) They keep moving the goal post. or b) The weakness of capitalism gets exposed for all to see when the king of private markets and free enterprise is overcome by the sheer power rendered by a nationalization. Just like democratic Trump is overcome by the apparent unlimited and omnipresent power of dictators. Autocratic regimes and the use of nationalization as a tool for dominance is so irresistible that even the staunchest supporters of capitalism fall for both.

with all due respect to both Brian Brooks (who probably is an excellent lawyer) and Coinbase, if FNMA is to raise many tens of billions of dollars to recapitalize, there needs to be a black belt Ceo in place with material expertise in real estate and capital raising. The compensation caps would need to be adjusted by congress, which is another reason why mnuchin and phillips are likely trying for the legislative route in 1h19 before any comprehensive administrative action. Looking at it from Trump's angle, I think it's best for him if it goes legislatively and the warrants pay for the wall and/or infrastructure. In the mean time, if our leaders want to do the right thing, please replace the sweep with a commitment fee over the holidays!! We were not blindsided and I doubt the payment cap was an issue here. Most likely, Mnuchin -and the Treasury Dpt. in general- see Coinbase as a backdoor entrance into the cryptocurrency world and want to have the inside scoop through a long time trusted advisor. It makes sense for exchanges to hire these government linked counselors. But when it comes to Coinbase, it is not a coincidence that the chosen name has been a close associate to Mnuchin. Now, Treasury can have a bird's-eye view at the underworld and their venues of operation. Nothing like bitcoin or monero to laundry money or finance rouge industries, including terrorism. Besides this, this move gives absolute credibility to cryptocurrencies and the implied message is they are here to stay. Invest! The big money to be made in cryptocurrencies are the fees. And Coinbase is the most established. Have you seen their fees and volume? Brooks is going from a low 6-figure salary to a 7-figure salary in his equity stake alone, and Coinbase gets Treasury legitimacy. This is in the no-brainer pile. Brooks will be using some of this cash to invest in Fannie and Freddie. The only question is will it be preferred or common shares? I started this thread to minimize pollution here. If you can post the link with the hiring agreement over there I will appreciate it. Sorry you thought my comment was pollution. You opined in several comments over the reason that Brooks would go to Coinbase. And I was just trying to be helpful in answering that. I don't think it's controversial to say the compensation of Chief Legal Officer of a growth company with more than a billion in revenue and 500 employees would be quite high. I think it unlikely that Mnuchin has much to do with it, and I think it's unlikely that this bodes poorly for the Fannie and Freddie situation. Coinbase is the best exchange there is, and this would seem a spectacular opportunity for Brooks. Again, the fees are where the money is and Coinbase gets the lion's share and is poised to continue that into the future. In a sense Fannie and Freddie strike a nice contrast to Coinbase. Fannie and Freddie are anything but new, and probably wouldn't be the most exciting place for a talent such as Brooks to work. Also, they almost certainly will have a strong regulator going forward that will keep compensation in check, unlike Coinbase. I am sorry the pollution remark got misunderstood. I thought this would be an interesting topic on its own and I was inviting you to expand on it. In a way, it was more of a compliment than a critic. I did write a lengthier answer originally only to realize I was deviating from the topic here. That's when I created the specific thread. So perhaps, that remark was directed towards me. But you already expressed your view. That Brooks probably saw this simply as an opportunity for advancement and there is nothing else to read.

There you go. Someone bring some kryptonite! https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-09-14/fannie-regulator-mel-watt-refused-to-aid-sexual-harassment-probe?__twitter_impression=true case is clearly good for fairholme in front of Sweeney. But then, wouldn't it impact Perry the opposite way (breach of contract among private actors)? no, breach claim still survives but the takings claim can be added. not mutually exclusive Thanks.

There you go. Someone bring some kryptonite! https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-09-14/fannie-regulator-mel-watt-refused-to-aid-sexual-harassment-probe?__twitter_impression=true case is clearly good for fairholme in front of Sweeney. But then, wouldn't it impact Perry the opposite way (breach of contract among private actors)?

with all due respect to both Brian Brooks (who probably is an excellent lawyer) and Coinbase, if FNMA is to raise many tens of billions of dollars to recapitalize, there needs to be a black belt Ceo in place with material expertise in real estate and capital raising. The compensation caps would need to be adjusted by congress, which is another reason why mnuchin and phillips are likely trying for the legislative route in 1h19 before any comprehensive administrative action. Looking at it from Trump's angle, I think it's best for him if it goes legislatively and the warrants pay for the wall and/or infrastructure. In the mean time, if our leaders want to do the right thing, please replace the sweep with a commitment fee over the holidays!! We were not blindsided and I doubt the payment cap was an issue here. Most likely, Mnuchin -and the Treasury Dpt. in general- see Coinbase as a backdoor entrance into the cryptocurrency world and want to have the inside scoop through a long time trusted advisor. It makes sense for exchanges to hire these government linked counselors. But when it comes to Coinbase, it is not a coincidence that the chosen name has been a close associate to Mnuchin. Now, Treasury can have a bird's-eye view at the underworld and their venues of operation. Nothing like bitcoin or monero to laundry money or finance rouge industries, including terrorism. Besides this, this move gives absolute credibility to cryptocurrencies and the implied message is they are here to stay. Invest! The big money to be made in cryptocurrencies are the fees. And Coinbase is the most established. Have you seen their fees and volume? Brooks is going from a low 6-figure salary to a 7-figure salary in his equity stake alone, and Coinbase gets Treasury legitimacy. This is in the no-brainer pile. Brooks will be using some of this cash to invest in Fannie and Freddie. The only question is will it be preferred or common shares? I started this thread to minimize pollution here. If you can post the link with the hiring agreement over there I will appreciate it.

The recent hiring of Brian Brooks to Coinbase could be viewed as an important landmark given the close association between the Sec. of the Treasury and Brian Brooks himself. While it's unclear whether this means a seal of approval by the government of what cryptocurrencies represent, a maneuver with more obscure purposes or simply an opportunity for financial gain by Mr. Brooks, it is also possible it may signal the start of a new phase for this field.

with all due respect to both Brian Brooks (who probably is an excellent lawyer) and Coinbase, if FNMA is to raise many tens of billions of dollars to recapitalize, there needs to be a black belt Ceo in place with material expertise in real estate and capital raising. The compensation caps would need to be adjusted by congress, which is another reason why mnuchin and phillips are likely trying for the legislative route in 1h19 before any comprehensive administrative action. Looking at it from Trump's angle, I think it's best for him if it goes legislatively and the warrants pay for the wall and/or infrastructure. In the mean time, if our leaders want to do the right thing, please replace the sweep with a commitment fee over the holidays!! We were not blindsided and I doubt the payment cap was an issue here. Most likely, Mnuchin -and the Treasury Dpt. in general- see Coinbase as a backdoor entrance into the cryptocurrency world and want to have the inside scoop through a long time trusted advisor. It makes sense for exchanges to hire these government linked counselors. But when it comes to Coinbase, it is not a coincidence that the chosen name has been a close associate to Mnuchin. Now, Treasury can have a bird's-eye view at the underworld and their venues of operation. Nothing like bitcoin or monero to laundry money or finance rouge industries, including terrorism. Besides this, this move gives absolute credibility to cryptocurrencies and the implied message is they are here to stay. Invest!

Wow. Brian Brooks going to Coinbase. That's a surprise. Or may be not. If Mnuchin wants to see what is happening under the cryptocurrency hood. May also mean cryptoland is a lot more important to M than anything else. Yes, good luck to all and thanks investorG.

Just brainstorming... What happens if treasuries have a huge rally, yields collapse and Fannie and Freddie record big losses from their hedging with more money from Treasury needed? 1. Will the government use the occasion to justify the nws and Treasury's commitment? 2. Or will they be seen as irresponsible for prolonging the status quo, which may force administrative measures? Other issues affecting Fannie and Freddie. At 4.5% for 30 y loans mortgage market is cooling down while the housing market has been suffering from higher costs (qualified labor and incremental costs > lumber, steel, concrete). Less loans, less securitization. An adverse scenario may lead to what? Recap? Liquidation? Hard to see the status quo surviving another possible crisis.

There you go. Someone bring some kryptonite! https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-09-14/fannie-regulator-mel-watt-refused-to-aid-sexual-harassment-probe?__twitter_impression=true

On another front, i see on my times and sales sheet what looks like quite a bit of buying of fnmas and fmckj. Not retail. These are chunks of 5k to 10k to 20k shares at a time... Looking like a buying program as the trades go on for an hour so. Maybe it's Berkowitz speculating. He already said over the years he made good change trading around them.

I thank you, Locus. And everyone else here for greater insights than mine.

Truly, he did not say his plan was bad policy but that the WH did not like it (or may have not). At least, that is how I read the quoted sentence. Even better, if it happened that way.

The government cannot say that the NWS will not operate in perpetuity. It has been designed to run perpetually. Amending it, means changing it. And if so, Sweeney will not be dealing with the NWS that we know any longer, but something different. The consequences of the NWS -the past takings w/o compensation- are a permanent picture of the past. The takings continues to this day. But amending the NWS only fixes issues on a forward basis. Even if Sweeney were to force the government to set a timeline and a blueprint to eradicate the sweep as is, the damage created is frozen in time. The repair requested is not just to fix the present, but the past. It is almost like asking an arsonist to put out the fire set on an abandoned building believing a solution has been reached. But the building is now history. An injunction on the sweep or ruling against the government to produce a timeline and a blueprint would have been fine in other lawsuits that sought a repricing of the securities. In Sweeney's court you look for compensation. As far as my little understanding of the legal issues goes.

Yes the taking took place with the NWS, that's where the confiscation began. But the thought being that given the NWS has been deemed legal, Sweeney rules it was the original bailout/HERA authorization where the taking took place since that was the legislation responsible for creating the power to enact the NWS and the taking. And the statute of limitations has run out on challenging HERA. Just wondering if anyone else considered that possibility. I'm just trying to figure out a way a judge could (again) royally screw something up that is so f-ing obvious. If everyone believes that the taking is a slam-dunk and the preferreds are the way to go then why not back up the truck? I guess the only question then is how much is awarded? Doesn't a takings take place when the actual action occurs? In our case, 8/17/12. an argument can be made, and I would expect fairholme counsel to make it, that there is an ongoing taking every time a dividend is swept to treasury to eliminate any positive net worth of GSEs I have completely forgotten about that argument. Thank you for the reminder.

Yes the taking took place with the NWS, that's where the confiscation began. But the thought being that given the NWS has been deemed legal, Sweeney rules it was the original bailout/HERA authorization where the taking took place since that was the legislation responsible for creating the power to enact the NWS and the taking. And the statute of limitations has run out on challenging HERA. Just wondering if anyone else considered that possibility. I'm just trying to figure out a way a judge could (again) royally screw something up that is so f-ing obvious. If everyone believes that the taking is a slam-dunk and the preferreds are the way to go then why not back up the truck? I guess the only question then is how much is awarded? Doesn't a takings take place when the actual action occurs? In our case, 8/17/12.

Link? It was a luncheon at the Exchequer Club. I emailed them to see if there is any transcript. I will come back to the thread if there is. No webcast and nothing recorded.

Losing the takings case will not be a run-for-the-exits scenario, in my view. A DeMarco FHFA appointment might be.

This is definitely the fear, and the source of much of the risk that keeps share prices low. Cause for optimism exists with the retirements of Hensarling and Corker, two very outspoken GSE bashers with powerful positions in their respective chambers. If they get replaced by Waters and Toomey, respectively, then we could see a drastic shift in Congressional sentiment towards FnF. However, Congressional action is both still unlikely in that case and fraught with uncertainty in any case, at least from a shareholder's point of view. What we're missing is how Trump feels about the situation. If he wants Treasury to do something specific then it will be done, whether that is sitting on its hands (as has been the case until now) or actually implementing adminsitrative reform. Trump's choice for Watt's successor will be very telling. We may be overestimating Trump's ability to maneuver, here. Common sense is that the Administration gives the new Congress at least 1 chance. Even then, if Trump moves to admin reform aggressively Congress, new or not, could react. The Fannie and Freddie Maxime Waters may envision is probably closer to Watts', a utility. Nothing like Moelis'. Before, we had Corker's Jumpstart. Will we have a Water's Jumpstart if D's regain the House and Admin goes the Moelis way? Both politics and lawsuits call for Mnuchin/Trump to be overly cautious, if not to stand still. Anything can backfire. While this gets disentangled, a move by either Treasury or FHFA towards recapitalization would be good news. Something as simple as Watt requesting FF to come up with a capital restoration plan or Treasury with another letter of agreement modifying terms. This may not jeopardize relations. Shareholder-friendly recommendations for both companies and the FHFA may also help remove some fog. So there are a few simple things that may give us a breather in a couple of months. But even with favorable names in place and a move towards recapitalization, it is unlikely Trump will want to show his hand with lawsuits running. The fact that Hindes fought for 20 years in a somewhat similar case -in spite of the obvious differences- indicates his and most lawsuits will have to reach an across-the-board agreement/settlement before anything definite happens. Just dropping them will not work. Government will want a written reassurance everything has been settled. So will anyone who has filed settle for nothing?

Your last sentence is the most concise and precise statement of what appears to be happening. Thank you. What will it take to break the status quo it is not clear. While we wait, some distraction. I did not know about Gary Hindes. Doesn't look like he is the type that quits.

Thank you, emily. I re-read this a few times. If chla's members are really issuing more than 50% of all loans bought by Fannie and Freddie that are being securitized, that is a beast. I thought they were a nobody but the opposite appears to be true. Three important dates are approaching: 9/28 would be paid-back date for taxpayers had there been no nws. A month and a half later, Watt closes the public commenting scheme and within the same time frame or just a few more weeks the name of a new FHFA Director should make the rounds. What will come out of this nobody can tell. Hopefully, neither Hernsanling, DeMarco are considered for that post. And I am not sure about Craig Phillips and Calabria. At least, the latter authored and amicus brief with Krimminger that aligned better with Willet's dissent.

as well, brief pointed out that even after accounting adjustment, treasury owned 79.9% of company. I would have preferred brief to have put an estimated value on that position, but so it goes That is a great point, Chris. If the purpose here is to remove the natural fear of the judges to have to deal with a 122 billion hot potato and by none other than the Treasury department convincing the court that the Srs removal will only help increase taxpayers' stake by at least 100 billion would have been also favorable. At some point, it makes you wonder if all these defeats have been really based on a correct interpretation of the law or have been the result of judges' inability and refusal to deal with the money issue while tweaking interpretations for a convenient exit.

I found it interesting how in Bhatti's appeal Cooper explains the court that vacating the 3rd amendment would mean changing nothing from the operational side, and would only represent a change in accounting with no transfer of funds. I also found reassuring how he explained that by September 30th (or no later than 9/28) or the end of 3Q, both companies may have fully redeemed the Srs. had the excess on the dividend payments been allowed (as in no nws imposed ever). That wording is probably easier on a layperson to understand than saying Treasury reaches their IRR by 3Q 2018. If this appeal has any chance and if judges' fears subside that they won't be touching Treasury's coffers, they may feel more at ease in making the 3rd go away. But then, they will also have to accept they are implicitly deciding taxpayers have been fully repaid. And that would be a Treasury decision. Thank you for the link, Chris (in TH's blog). Just a reminder since we tend to lose focus. The only thing we need to see some value in the preferreds is the removal of the Srs. A change in the capital structure. And in any reform or change of the status quo the Srs. are the greatest impediment, not the warrants. The sweep will not exist if not for the Srs.

video/audio not yet posted Thank you for the link. Interesting to hear bewildered judges in search of an explanation that seems to forever escape them just when they are about to reach the right conclusion. I'd say these 3 judges will raise their eyebrows the Lamberth way and write a 3-0. Then, go home with a clear conscience that at least they felt deeply shocked by FHFA/Treasury's actions.

I don't think that's what it boils down to in this situation. My thesis completely discounts any possible legal win or positive action by Congress. The thesis is based on what Mnuchin and the White House have said they want to do (and what can realistically happen: r'ship = $5T national debt increase, doesn't seem like an election winning platform) and how that corresponds pretty darn closely with a favorable plan for preferred shareholders (the Moelis plan). If Mnuchin fails to act then the Supreme Court comes in to play. There's a lot more to it than this, but that is my one paragraph answer. DocSnowball may have a point re kindness of strangers. Back in the Jim Millstein days his plan also called for a short, technical receivership. In the process, the Jrs. were valued at par. JM owned them only to divest after his plan went nowhere. This time, there aren't too many friendly voices and the general silence regarding our future could be construed as no bones. Or a tiny one.