rros

I have been trying to find that out unsuccessfully. Hatch did say he was going to try to schedule another vote later today. I may have misheard him but I think Hatch said something like if 1 Democrat was present they would be able to vote. Don't quote me on that. That is correct. But there has to be another recourse. Or this can go on indefinitely and government cannot function.

From all your diatribe this is my takeaway, with which I agree. "obama..., what an ahole."

At the end of the day, this is what matters. And the real deal: "we have to get these companies out of government control. It makes no sense this has gone on for so long".

He used the word "fix" twice. On top of telling senators he was an expert in the matter. Prior, he spoke of "restructuring". We don't know how far he will take this but companies will survive with a fix. And hopefully most of the current capital structure will too survive.

I do not think Warner succeeded in extracting a promise from Mnuchin regarding no administrative action bypassing Congress. All Mnuchin committed to was protecting taxpayers and keeping the mortgage market liquid. His 2 priorities. As for recap/release he never ever mentioned this. But he did say "once we restructured the companies" in the now famous interview. In my view, the window for a 4th amendment is still wide open. And restructuring w/o Congress too.

Would he have to have zero economic interest in Cooper & Kirk? Indeed a very interesting situation. yes. cooper is the rainmaker at that firm. if he takes SG, i wouldnt be surprised if the firm merges with another larger firm. Chris, thank you for those awesome links.

Did you mean shareholders getting screwed depending on whether they supported a Bloomberg presidential run as Ackman did or they supported Trump right after winning the presidential nomination as John Paulson did?

Ok. Were you a party to that suit? Did you settle? What did you receive in order to agree to settle? FHFA filed a motion to find just that. And you think he can disclose this publicly? lol.

Would prfd shareholders like Fairholme and Perry really sell shares at these prices with the end finally in sight? Doesn't make sense to me at all. They are in a great position (being in prfd) with close ties to a friendly admin. I don't see Mnuchin having any problems getting through. I think what's weighing on share prices is the definite uncertainty over court decisions; and there is a great deal of talk lately about litigants possibly settling with no benefit to shareholders not directly involved in the suits like PwC. I don't have the legal expertise to know for example, can Ackman, Berkowitz, Perry, etc. structure a deal that benefits only them? Will other hedge funds come in and offer a recap strategy that screws current shareholders and allows them to walk away with the newly restructured entities? I continue to find that every time that I gain optimism on this investment, it always reverts to so many negative concerns. The documents being made available is essential imo and I can't help but wonder if they ever make their way to P's attorneys. Mnuchin will certainly be questioned on FnF and how his plans could benefit hedge funds friends, etc. The perfect answer to these accusations would be to raise the document issues, the extraordinary use of privilege, the NWS and profitability. Will he bring any of this up or does he say the wrong thing and devastate recent pps gains? Nobody is selling. All shares are consolidating in a high level pennant, a continuation pattern. Typical after a huge run. Some back and filling, profit taking... waiting for the next leg up. We go higher from here. Any opinion on above and non-class action shareholders getting left out in the cold? My personal view is that all these big name shareholders took positions to become the new owners in a privatization. Why would they settle privately after all the effort, resources and time spent? What they want is a huge piece of the largest market there ever is and in that game be the most meaningful player.

Would prfd shareholders like Fairholme and Perry really sell shares at these prices with the end finally in sight? Doesn't make sense to me at all. They are in a great position (being in prfd) with close ties to a friendly admin. I don't see Mnuchin having any problems getting through. I think what's weighing on share prices is the definite uncertainty over court decisions; and there is a great deal of talk lately about litigants possibly settling with no benefit to shareholders not directly involved in the suits like PwC. I don't have the legal expertise to know for example, can Ackman, Berkowitz, Perry, etc. structure a deal that benefits only them? Will other hedge funds come in and offer a recap strategy that screws current shareholders and allows them to walk away with the newly restructured entities? I continue to find that every time that I gain optimism on this investment, it always reverts to so many negative concerns. The documents being made available is essential imo and I can't help but wonder if they ever make their way to P's attorneys. Mnuchin will certainly be questioned on FnF and how his plans could benefit hedge funds friends, etc. The perfect answer to these accusations would be to raise the document issues, the extraordinary use of privilege, the NWS and profitability. Will he bring any of this up or does he say the wrong thing and devastate recent pps gains? Nobody is selling. All shares are consolidating in a high level pennant, a continuation pattern. Typical after a huge run. Some back and filling, profit taking... waiting for the next leg up. We go higher from here.

Who is helping Jeff Sessions prepare for senate confirmation hearings? Yep, that Chuck Cooper. cherzeca mentioned that the legal cases are on autopilot thanks to career attorneys at the DOJ. So now we know that we have connections with the potential head of the DOJ as well. Assuming Treasury doesn't take any notice, hopefully the DOJ does! autopilot until 1/20...to be clear. i am hopeful cooper might even prep mnuchin on the GSE prong of his confirmation rule of law, baby.

+1. boards are an echo chamber; people are wired to derive psychological comfort out of making bias confirming statements we are still in highly speculative mode in terms of trying to understand what mnuchin/trump's intentions are.. some caution is in order agree with caution statements. sometimes, the less you know about something, the more convinced you are. in this case, i must say that the more i read (briefs etc) the more convinced i am, but lamberth told me that i might be emphasizing the wrong thing, such as the rule of law. i reread mnuchin's tv statement, and i want to ask this board whether you guys think this is an interesting tell. whenever someone is generally antaganostic to GSEs, they talk about "reforming" the GSEs...that they should be wind down and replaced, or reformed to the core. here is the convo: “Maria: Would you move to have these privatized? Mnuchin: Absolutely. We gotta get Fannie and Freddie out of government ownership. It makes no sense that these are owned by the government and have been controlled by the government for as long as they have. In many cases this displaces private lending in the mortgage markets and we need these entities that will be safe; so let me just be clear we’ll make sure that when they’re restructured they’re absolutely safe and they don’t get taken over again but we gotta get them out of government control.” notice mnuchin used the word "restructured". now when i think a finance guy uses the word restructured, he is talking about a finance fix, a fix to balance sheet, not a fix to the core of the enterprise that would involve reform. financial restructuring falls far short of reform, in other words. am i reading too much into this distinction? (ie confirmation bias). frankly, i think it is telling what mnuchin's current mindset is...doesnt mean we can tell with any specificity what he and trump admin will do, but i don't think it was just a meaningless word choice. Re Mnuchin statement. In my view, only 3 issues can be derived from his words in the form of a vision. 1) The companies will survive. 2) There will be new owners as part of the restructuring and the government will stop being one. 3) The companies may not look like the old companies or they may. The above 3 circumvent Congress as long as the restructuring can be done administratively. Like earnings cap, portfolio restrictions, etc. However, the risk is that administrative reform may not stick. Nevertheless, the important Q is who the new owners will be and under what terms.

stevens says this in linked article: "Similarly, Congress voted almost unanimously to limit the Treasury's ability to execute any transaction using the government-owned GSE preferred shares absent an explicit act of Congress." this is patently untrue. the guy is a shill. Let me add granularity, if you don't mind... This is somewhat correct. "Similarly, 114th Congress voted almost unanimously to limit Obama's Treasury's ability to execute any specific transactions using... And here comes the 115th Congress and Trump's Treasury with 1 year to go before Jumpstart is dead. We'll see what this new Congress delivers given the new Treasury crew. Noting that perhaps, just perhaps, Treasury delivers first. Stevens et al. want to prolong a narrative that has become unsustainable.

In the (new) era of Ayn Rand wall streeters getting rich off any opportunity will become role models. And there will be (some) media behind them. It is just too early to forget 8 years of progressive media and the Elizabeth Warrens of the world. The animals, animal spirits, will be running the show. Soon.

Whatever is said by whoever really doesn't matter. Even if trying to assess "sentiment". The universe of retail is tiny and price fluctuations may be just coincidence. Securing a victory requires surpassing some hurdles. Nominees are rarely rejected. But they get withdrawn due to controversy. Six with the last 3 Presidents (12 in total). If confirmed, senators may extract commitments from nominees narrowing their ability to operate on specific issues. Second hurdle to surpass. Only after this one can have some confidence on certain outcomes. Mnuchin will certainly have to be careful. As we write, there are probably a few out there already trying to secure nomination votes to smooth out the process.

Mulvaney had a bill doing away with the Sr. preferred shares. So if a congressman already proposed it, why not next Treasury Sec.? You must consider a scenario in which the Sr. shares are considered fully repaid. Next problem would be building a minimum of 2.5% capital.

Except that one side wants to get rid of the entities all together by starving them of their capital. The other side wants them recapitalized to ensure affordable housing, and would rather see them in private hands than in constant jeopardy as they are in their current state. Furthermore, it's all up to the Executive Branch anyway, and if not, the Judicial Branch. Congress is the least important of the three. They are not under "constant jeopardy" as they are under government conservatorship currently. The case can be argued that without the government's backing, these entities would cease to exist and the common and subordinated preferred stock would be worth 0 so why should they receive anything? The case can be made that without FDIC backing of deposits, banks would cease as well. So why should the bank shareholders receive anything? FDIC isn't government backing, members have to pay into the insurance fund. I'm with frank on this one, with the explicit government guarantee there isn't some catastrophic risk of having a subsidiary (like the post office) not holding excess capital on their balance sheet. If they need capital, it just flows back from the parent (in this case the government). I never understood that line of reasoning. But the legality of the NWS is another thing altogether. > I never understood that line of reasoning. When those funds flow from parent, it is taxpayers' money. When it comes from companies' capital it is private money backed or not backed. The difference must be insignificant if you can't see it. Let's have Treasury explicitly back all debt from all corporations and in exchange get 100% of all corporate earnings streams forever while impeding them having their own capital. After all, it may always flow from parent if there is any need. Companies remain open for business so citizens will not notice a thing. Rename the US as the United Cubas of America.

Not if charters (Congress mission) disappear together with the implicit guarantee. Perhaps Mnuchin recommends an explicit, pay-for guarantee from Treasury for specific segments of mbs.

i agree on profit retention and emergency line and preferred-common exchange option. thanks. Commons are Ackman's bet. Ackman supported Bloomberg for a Presidential run during primaries. Instead, John Paulson -Jr. preferred shares- fully supported Trump. This could influence the final outcome. Not that commons will do bad but a slow, organic recapitalization over a 2 year period will hurt the Jrs. You must assign a probability to the Jrs. getting hurt if your bet is slow recapitalization.

Let's all wait for confirmation hearings. Corker -if senator and not Sec. of State- will make his "jack-lew" maneuver and commit Mnuchin to say it is the job of Congress to deal with the GSEs and Treasury should stay out. That would a Trump moment to drain the swamp. Hopefully, Mnuchin will not bow down.

Can Treasury transfer the warrants to HUD for Ben Carson's pet projects? And be seen as maximizing social value/ taxpayer's benefit instead. Then, conversion/stock selling can take place over the 4 years presidential term. But I believe either HERA or PSPAs prohibit this as funds should only go into Treasury's general fund.

Not too optimistic but realistic, in my view. Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration doesn't look like the type that thinks "your business: the government made you do it". More like along Reagan lines, the government "is the problem". For Obama, government is like an overpowering Sun from which all life emanates. Therefore, government should suck up all benefits for itself. Trumpism doesn't follow this line of thought. Neither Mnuchin. It is entirely realistic that once in there they may come out with statements that will greatly differ from what we have become sick of hearing.

Analysts are paid to understand today's frozen picture of a company. Not to see how much value can be extracted from an investment. Take a look at John Paulson's investment in LNG when the company was only set for imports and nobody yet had envisioned the US exporting liquified natgas. It took a while but Cheniere made the switch and it can now make money hands over fist. It's not his job, but most likely the analyst is underestimating the creativity and resourcefulness of the potential new owners. It's hard to value and assess the earnings of "leap of faith".

hera: Just a common sense, non-legal view.. may = is allowed to Lawmakers may use the word "may" in cases where "even though it may (is allowed to), it can't" so there is the alternative: can't. As opposed to "may not". Example: may preserve and conserve. But if it can't, it must liquidate. In receivership, the use of the word "may" is useless as there are no alternatives. Liquidation can always be achieved. In all instances. There is no reason "to try". So another way to refer to the word may is "try" or "allowed to try". But since this a non-legal view I may have just wasted everybody's time.

@merk not to quibble, but if perry appeals ct finds that shareholders have a direct claim for breach of K and fid duty, i would think that it would vacate lamberth's dismissal and remand for trial, rather than reverse, as a reversal would result in judgment for Ps...and i dont see the record permitting perry appeals ct to decide that issue I don't understand how we can have a direct claim for breach of contract if dividend payment on the preferred shares are by definition discretionary and if the GSEs are not adequately capitalized without the deal with treasury to act too fully fund any capital needs. If the NWS is void it could be argued that all money earned would need to go to build capital for the enterprises so the preferred shares would not be owed dividends. How do we have a direct claim here ? I do not know if this will answer your question but dividends are paid out of retained earnings. The nws removed that possibility. Regardless of the BOD declaring a discretionary dividend some day or being the companies fully capitalized, the nws eliminated the option forever as retaining earnings is not allowed.