Luke 532

Oh how I wish the author of these articles would contribute to the COB&F message boards! ;) Handicapping The Perry Appeal Oral Argument http://seekingalpha.com/article/3966347-analyzing-perry-appeal-oral-argument?app=1&auth_param=c78o:1bhd295:c11cccbe4ea943f87df2859b42219fa7&uprof=44#alt2

At least one doesn't leave office until January. Besides, you're assuming we know the names in those documents. I wouldn't be surprised to see some big names of bank officials, top dogs in the mortgage industry, politicians still serving, etc. There's likely a very good reason the government is fighting with everything they've got to keep those docs under wraps... and why I think it is probable that they will settle before the docs see the light of day.

At least one doesn't leave office until January.

a rational businessman would. govtal officials? agreed. there would be real personal cost to the rational businessman in not settling, but theres almost zero personal cost to the gov official. a settlement sounds nice, but i dont see it Unless part of the settlement is that the 11,000 docs in question will remain under wraps. That would allow those personally involved to remain secret.

Government secretly plans Wall Street takeover of Fannie, Freddie http://www.housingwire.com/blogs/1-rewired/post/36831-matt-taibbi-government-secretly-plans-wall-street-takeover-of-fannie-freddie?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=housingwire

+1. Add to it that the gov't asked for terms awhile back, Sherrod Brown's comments, Berkowitz's comments, Political Alpha's piece as reported by Politico, etc... Sherrod Brown/Bruce Berkowitz comments: Brown 12/18/2015... https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/12/18/senate-section Mr. BROWN. I will say to my colleague from New York that it does not. That is not the effect of the language. Any number of decisions could be made after that date, when a new Congress and a new President will be in place. Nor does this provision have any effect on the court cases and settlements currently underway challenging the validity of the third amendment. As the Senator from Tennessee said yesterday, "this legislation does not prejudice'' any of those cases. Berkowitz 2/23/2016 At 33-minute mark of the call: https://engage.vevent.com/index.jsp?eid=4711&seid=18 "In late 2015 there were settlement communications between plaintiffs and the government. But frankly, given how deep treasury has dug in its heels and has tried to hide the truth by withholding evidence, it remains unclear to me whether treasury is capable of having an earnest conversation." Gov't asking for terms: Jon Prior (Politico) tweet on 2/24/2016: "Treasury, DOJ made no offer last fall, asked for terms." Political Alpha as reported by Politico 4/2/2016: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-money IS WALL STREET SLEEPING ON GSE REFORM? — Via Political Alpha: “While the 10/19/15 coordinated policy response by the White House and Treasury to our 10/5/15 note, ‘White House Looking into Ending GSE Conservatorship,’ had supposedly put the issue over rebuilding capital at the GSEs to bed, contacts tell us that the debate is still very much alive and ongoing inside the Obama Administration. “Moreover, the discussions have moved to Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA), which has the authority to act unilaterally and is now actively reviewing its options and likely to act much sooner than Wall Street is expecting to begin the next major housing reform initiative: rebuilding capital at the GSEs.”

I know that none of us know exactly what will happen, but it's good to see the bottom-line/takeaway/assessment comments from merkhet and cherzeca regarding the oral arguments. (emphasis added in bold is mine) Yes, I still agree with my initial assessment of winner winner chicken dinner. ... Anyway, tl;dr, winner winner chicken dinner. At the very least, I think we get a remand for a complete administrative record. Base case, I think we win on breach of K. Bull case, I think we win on APA.

Might be time for them to settle before this really gets out of hand before elections.

Rolling Stone picked up the story? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-is-the-obama-administration-trying-to-keep-11-000-documents-sealed-20160418#ixzz46D5RemLP

100% pref, 0% common. Based on current dollar value... FNMAS: 47% FNMAH: 38% FMCCL: 15% Common: None

After listening again, coupled with Christian's comment, I agree that it sounds like Brown. If they had to render a decision tonight, I would really like our chances. And I think the more time that passes the more they will learn about the case and that Lamberth's decision was incorrect.

Listen closely and you'll hear another one of the judges (not Ginsburg) say "close enough" on what Ginsburg says above. In other words, she agrees that the Treasury intended to kill it at the time the Third Amendment was announced. It's subtle but I think it speaks volumes to her line of thinking. Maybe somebody that recognizes the voice can share if it's Brown or Millett. Here's the audio: https://app.voicebase.com/autonotes/private_detail/18010741/hash=apyVYWRsammWbmvKlWGSnGqPmGptxWZsaWnEkXGZxGZmxZaWaJZnaGpvnMXG?vbt=8452

I think Ginsburg is heavily leaning towards plaintiffs... Justice Department lawyer Mark Stern rejected the proposition that the FHFA’s conservation of Freddie and Fannie had veered into a receivership, telling the court the Treasury Department’s financial commitment to the companies is ongoing. “When the third amendment was announced,” Ginsburg said, referring to that portion of the bailout plan that authorized the profits sweep, “Treasury said we’re going to wind this thing down, we going to kill it, we’re going to drive a stake through its heart, we’re going to salt the earth so it can never grow back.” “I don’t remember that language,” Stern deadpanned. https://beta.finance.yahoo.com/news/fannie-freddie-judges-hear-investor-202447127.html

Tweet from fake TimHoward (I know, I know)... "Major Update received: Perry oral arguments make it clear 2 out of 3 judges will overturn Lamberth ruling."

+1 I'm incredibly grateful that cherzeca accepted my nudging to join COB&F so we could all benefit from his insight. Merkhet has been an incredibly valuable member of this thread for as long as I can remember.

I never watch CNBC, but here is a video from this morning... http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000509862

The fake Tim Howard (I know, I know... don't shoot me) said around 9:00am today that it would not be streamed. He has boots on the ground at the actual event.

Could Congress simply pass a bill with such huge capital requirements that it would effectively kill shareholders?

Rep. Mick Mulvaney discussing his recent bill (attached)

doughishere, recognizing the sin in the world is not necessarily a bad thing. The more one is aware of sin in the world the more one can recognize, in turn, what is good... and more importantly the very origin of what is good. Send me a private message if you want to discuss further.

In Forbes today, my second favorite Epstein (behind Theo when he built the 2004 Sox) with his take on recent events... http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2016/04/13/new-deposition-testimony-cuts-the-legs-out-of-the-2012-net-worth-sweep/#5bfb07e13efd

I understand that, too, but what is the upside over and above what they could already accomplish/say/claim via a settlement? Continuing to steal the GSE profits the obvious one, but do they really think that could continue? Yet, the downside could be much, much deeper than what it is today. Only a few documents were released... one can only imagine what is still under wraps. Then again, I'm arguing that the gov't will act logically. I should know better.

That's assuming an ass whuppin' on Friday would lead to a legal resolution. Many a slip twixt cup and lip. If the beating is bad enough, there may be intervening actions before an opinion comes out. +1 on the "intervening actions"

How could they not be earnestly discussing a settlement at this very moment? It would defy all logic. I just don't see how this whole situation could possibly get any better for the gov't. These are just a handful of documents, probably not even the most damaging, and they show some very deceitful and unlawful practices. Plus Lamberth has to be upset that the gov't lawyers lied to him. And the panel that is hearing oral arguments on Friday can't be pleased with the content within the unsealed documents. How will the gov't lawyers say anything on Friday without damaging their credibility and risking disbarment with every word they say? The list of risks for the gov't is seemingly endless. Yet, they could come out smelling like a rose (mostly) if they reach a settlement. Then start preaching their mantra of "we saved the economy, made tons of money for the taxpayers, etc." I don't see how this situation can get any better for the government without some out-of-left-field legal ruling (although we have seen that before).

Unless there is a settlement in which prefs are called at par and converted to common, and common could potentially be crammed down. I think a settlement is still very much a possibility, especially since Sweeney may be hinting strongly at the gov't that by releasing some docs that she will release more and rule positively on the P's motion to compel. Perhaps this is a warning to the gov't to get this wrapped up before she really lets the dirty laundry out. Just speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised to wake up tomorrow (or any other day in the near future) to hear that a settlement has been reached where prefs are called at par and are converted to common... with the common prices left up to Mr. Market.