rros

From Thombiz (GG) and here by Emily (thank you). http://fanniefreddiesecrets.org/ unsealed docs July 19, 2017. http://fanniefreddiesecrets.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Email-re-Meeting-Recap-6-25-12.pdf Looks like Tsy and DeMarco had a deep disagreement on principal reduction right before the nws.

I haven't seen this before. can you provide a copy of the actual full email? Yes, completely new. This changes the picture slightly (for the better). If DeMarco saw no death spiral coming, why did he agree on the 3rd? And why he went along with the narrative? Does this reinforce the ultra-vires argument? Are his actions becoming fraudulent behavior? Proof that Geithner's Treasury was completely in charge? Would love to see Miller's answer. Treasury had the FULL picture, no doubt. Just a bit earlier (or after, can't remember) Susan McFarland told Miller of the 50 billion in windfall profits coming in 2013. From her own oral testimony, if you all remember.

I personally don't think on those terms... price targets. Maybe that is a mistake. If the Srs. were to disappear I would have one less reason to sell. The ultimate gift here is solid collateral (and a great yield). Should these shares get relisted and my broker doesn't provide leverage, then I would reconsider. Maybe I am making a big mistake thinking this way. Reading others answers I now understand better... still no idea where the Jrs. may trade in each case.

Jrs. have the Srs. overhang. How the Srs. are treated (converted, sold or eliminated) will lead to different outcomes just as much as how the remaining portion of the commitment is treated (will these funds become potentially Srs.? or will they be subject to a simple commitment fee?). Otting revealing the Srs. treatment when a plan is disclosed may mean price movement within 2 weeks or so. A reversal of fortunes for the Jrs. could seal their fate as tier 1 capital at a high yield. There are preferred shares and then there may be the Jrs.

...is connected to this... You are right, Luke :)

Whoa. Am I allowed to say "holy s***" on here? This might be the single most important piece of news, in terms of its specificity and impact, that I have seen in a long time. It's the first time I can remember that an important player even implied a recap. That line about going from $6B to $150-200B has to mean a recap, right? At the same time, there is something in the back of my mind saying that I should sell some of my shares. I cannot explain it, so for now I'm going to ignore it. I will, however, pay very close attention to every detail we hear from Otting and Mnuchin. Funny this piece comes right after the WSJ piece. The battle of the bastards! So 2 to 4 weeks to see the plan and 6 to 18 months to fully recap, provided nothing comes out of left field. Does this mean staged secondaries? Were it not for the 30 minute recording -secretly recorded, perhaps, in that Jan 17 staff meeting- which Politico obviously had access to I would have thought this was a WH maneuver to pressure Congress into action. But the report by Politico indicates it is for real this time. Like Midas, however, I can't get over the feeling of many years of betrayals and disappointing actions. I still don't like that sellers show up at every spike.

Two orders. Look they went at the ask. current bid/ask 15.80/16.00. 270k @ 16.45 270k @ 16.60

Someone asked about John Paulson in the past. Still a preferred shareholder. Close to the end of the interview. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/billionaire-john-paulsons-tip-for-trump-supporters-living-in-new-york-stay-calm-2019-01-23

Thank you. I will have to listen to it once again...

I got to the 16 minute mark and then it crashed. Can't get it to start up again. Probably a lot of people listening to it at the same time. I got to 38 minute. that is ms. Edith Jones who is dominating the questioning. one tough judge. got through it all. hard to conclude how 16 judges will rule on the two separate claims. it is clear that judge jones is sympathetic to Ps arguments in general on both claims (she was the judge with the unmistakable Texas accent), but she dominated most of the questioning, and it is by no means reasonable to assume that the mostly silent judges will follow her lead. there was some push back of redressability from judge Haynes I believe, who wanted to know in effect why when Obama finally could appoint his man, mr. watt, why mr. watt didn't revoke the NWS. P counsel didn't respond, but probably should have, that judge watt wasn't going to do anything as director but keep the seat warm until congress acted. judge jones repeatedly suggested that the reason why the other circuits found the way they did is that they let fhfa/treasury control the factual narrative. not so with the collins complaint, which had the benefit of the fairholme discovery. and judge jones also stopped fhfa/treasury counsel when they were speaking as to historical acts which were not in the complaint as support for the NWS. Chris, what is your opinion on her argument that 2 different administrations, 3 different FHFA directors (2 acting) and 2 different Presidents have not sought to undo the nws?

Later today: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/oral-argument-recordings Case Nbr 17-20364

Following this line of thought my fear is whether Trump may use this widely advertised push to free the companies (with shares skyrocketing) to negotiate something with Democrats who may prefer the status quo to continue. Watt was all for status quo. And Trump has been radio silent for a reason.

I believe it would be a violation of the judicial oath for collins en banc to find fhfa constitutionally structured. the judicial power under article III extends to "cases and controversies", and collins is a controversy in which no party is seeking a decision that fhfa is constitutionally structured...only amici are asking for that...and amici are not parties to the case and controversy before collins en banc. Ps still have to win on standing and redressability, and get awarded retrospective relief (void NWS). but Ps cannot lose on whether fhfa is unconstitutionally structured. I hope you are right and that the amicus carries little weight. Honestly, that filing made me nervous. I never thought its intention to be preventing setting precedent. Instead, it looked to me more of an attempt to validate the nws by validating FHFA's structure while preserving the status quo. Wouldn't democrats, who just described the old GSEs as lobbying monsters with unparalleled political clout, be terrified of seeing them free again, in spite of the now strong regulator?

Chris could be right. GAO is unrelated to the WH. "The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO examines how taxpayer dollars are spent and provides Congress and federal agencies with objective, reliable information to help the government save money and work more efficiently.

I do not think discovery was part of it. Perry's attorneys had only asked for summary judgement when they first filed. At the last minute, after Ugoletti's affidavit showed up, they must have realized they made a strategic mistake and filed information hoping to "turn on" discovery (I think) or influence his views in the same manner. But that maneuver came too late and it looked as if Lamberth had made up his mind already. But really, the expert here is Chris.

FHFA and Treasury can write a "Letter of Agreement" anytime and modify just about any aspect of the PSPAs. Like they did when they raised the floor for the companies' minimum net worth. I think "the wall" is not just about the 5 billion needed. It seems to have political ramifications that go beyond the money. So more complex. And an easy route like reaching into the till may not be the preferred action. I may be wrong too.

FHFA and Treasury can write a "Letter of Agreement" anytime and modify just about any aspect of the PSPAs. Like they did when they raised the floor for the companies' minimum net worth.

The status quo is conservatorship. What do you mean?

Just take into account that one of the scenarios could be 50% of the amount of any preferred you may own could be converted to common. Which may not be a bad thing. Also, if you believe you may hold unto the preferreds for 5 to 10 years perhaps the ones with variable rates are better. We may be in the last 10 years of the 45 year inflation super-cycle, equivalent to 1965-1975.

Excellent! Thank you so much for this detailed report. If I may, I would like to add this speech to your list. This guy may have a say too... Jerome Powell - July 2017 The Case for Housing Finance Reform https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20170706a.htm * Make housing bailouts a remote possibility by attracting large amounts of private capital to be wiped out on first loss, before catastrophic. * Any guarantee should be transparent, explicit and applied to securities only. * Allow for greater competition: open up charters. * Follow simple approach: restructure and repurpose w/o dismantling current system. * Unacceptable status quo: find best feasible plan, not perfect answer.

So it's not really about reform anymore. Nor the housing market. Neither about the 30 Y mortgage, affordable housing or the Trust Funds. What it is really desperately about -as it is finally coming out for the world to see- is reviving Obama's old war against vulture capitalists.

What I find interesting is that he comments that there is a clear path and mission that has been laid out by Treasury and White house and what they want to accomplish. He also mentions a lot can be accomplished, and the path of the mission that has been laid out. Did all of this go over my head? All we have heard from Treasury is ending conservatorship and not putting tax payers at risk. What has the White house said about this entire thing? Nothing from what I an remember or have read? Clearly there is an administrative plan that looks at the liquidity capital (ie NWS dividends etc) and all of the above. That plan hasn't leaked but for sure Otting and Calabria/Mnuchin are aware of it. I believe the WH published a roadmap for Fannie and Freddie and it was mainly about (re)privatizing them. Could have been Mulvaney with OMB. I will look for it. It was a broader paper with a section for the GSEs. Found it https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Government-Reform-and-Reorg-Plan.pdf Page 75

Hopefully really imminent. That piece from October said new people were going to act fast. Lets see it! They can immediately suspend dividends and go for full earnings retention. But they cannot kill the NWS completely and do away with the Srs. That may have to be part of a complete overhaul, warrants, Srs. and perhaps conversion of Jrs.

Gentlemen (and ladies), with all due respect, "suspension of dividends" does not equate to ending the nws. Even if the sweep somehow disappears after suspending dividends the original 10% may come back. The Srs. are a ghost with a dividend that can return anytime. And both Jrs. and commons could get crashed under the 187 billion liquidation preference. What we need is this Damocles sword to go away. MI seems to understand this better than some of us and while it may look like they are giving in, they are not giving up. This is their way to compromise. Whether it has or does not have a chance to be considered at Treasury. My biased guess (or wish) is that at a minimum, specially for the optics, Srs. may get *castled* on a commitment fee for the balance of the credit line.

I know you are answering to undervalue but I would like to insert a note, if I may and with all due respect. I agree it's a step closer. But as long as the Srs. exist liquidation preference is negatively impacted for us and the ultimate aim here is to have Congress formulate a reform that will include, most likely, a receivership pass-through. MI is maneuvering within a very narrow path, the only one left for them and they still want to kill legacy shareholders. I imagine you are thinking the next 1/2 step is deeming the Srs. paid but MI, anticipating such outcome, explicitly states taxpayer claims should not be modified.