Luke 532

I'm not sure why this is being perceived as negative. The part cut off discussed that it was premature until discovery is complete (in other words, "not yet"). And if it's premature to disclose documents to the public then of course it's premature to disclose them to the NYT. It's not denied with no reason, and Sweeney welcomes future unseal requests per the language below... Extension on discovery... Why? Anybody's guess. Perhaps they want to accumulate more information to make the case stronger. Perhaps the government wants more time to negotiate a settlement and in exchange for giving them more time the Plaintiffs asked that they are allowed to dig deeper to further strengthen their case. Just a thought.

A bit surprising the WSJ ran this op-ed given all their negative GSE stuff. http://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-freddie-and-smaller-banks-1441308871 Fannie, Freddie and Smaller Banks Edward DeMarco’s plan would effectively hand the $4 trillion secondary mortgage market over to too-big-to-fail firms. September 4, 2015 Community bankers agree it’s time to “Put Fannie and Freddie Out of Taxpayers’ Misery” (op-ed, Aug. 21). However, Edward DeMarco’s plan would effectively hand the keys of the $4 trillion secondary mortgage market over to the too-big-to-fail firms that cratered the housing market to begin with. To prevent another mortgage-backed security meltdown, regulators should require market participants that provide upfront loss protection in the loans they sell to the GSEs to keep equity capital behind those loans. Fannie and Freddie should also adjust the guarantee fees of these entities to prevent them from having a superior price advantage which would drive further market consolidation. Turning over the ownership of the common securitization platform currently under construction would result in the too-big-to-fail cartel controlling access to the platform, forcing lenders to access the secondary market only through the largest aggregators. To prevent this, the Federal Housing Finance Agency should become a part owner of the platform and ensure it is available to all qualified entities. Finally, the FHFA and Treasury Department should use their authority to allow Fannie and Freddie to start rebuilding capital—the only real protection for taxpayers. Bleeding two of the largest financial firms in the country of their capital only to feed the coffers of the Treasury is irresponsible and puts the housing market and taxpayers at risk of another bailout. Reforming Fannie and Freddie can be done, but policy makers should not lock out Main Street institutions in favor of the nation’s largest and riskiest lenders. Camden R. Fine President and CEO Independent Community Bankers of America Washington

From two Yale legal scholars... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423467/fannie-freddie-profits-government "The government is illegally taking their profits."

Is it just my imagination or has there been a noticeable lack of filings over the past 11 days since 8/21 filings of document 233 (White House counsel requesting access) and document 235 (Sweeney setting September 4th as status conference)? At the rate filings were being submitted the past few months it seems odd to have very minimal activity over the past nearly 2 weeks.

Yes, of course. I don't think anybody was claiming Carney writes valid content.

http://www.valueplays.net/2015/09/01/more-on-golf-settlement-and-the-wsj-on-the-gses/ More on Golf, Settlement and the WSJ on the GSE’s

http://nypost.com/2015/08/29/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-settlements-loom-on-horizon/ Some honest exposure in the article above. Can't believe I'm linking to The New York Post... probably the worst publication on the planet behind National Enquirer. ;D

Is a Fannie and Freddie settlement near in #FannieGate? by Dick Bove http://www.housingwire.com/articles/34918-bove-is-a-fannie-and-freddie-settlement-near-in-fanniegate

Interesting quote from this article: "The most important element here is to recognize that conservatorship is not a long term solution, and in the current state may be the riskiest position of all."

First two paragraphs nail it... Imagine this. The owner of a small business facing a financially challenging period is forced to take out a loan from her local bank. She makes her monthly repayments on time and with interest in accordance with the loan agreement. But when the borrower’s business becomes profitable, the bank is no longer content with the original terms of the loan. Instead, it wants a larger piece of the business’s profits. So the bank decides unilaterally that it is going to undertake a “profit sweep.” Now, instead of making monthly payments at an agreed-upon rate of interest, the lender will have to give every dollar of profit she earns to the bank. She is not allowed to retain any of her profits or discharge her debt to the bank. If this sounds outrageous to you, that’s because it is. And it is essentially what the federal government has done to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s investors. http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/tarahelfman/2015/08/24/property-rights-under-fire-why-the-government-must-compensate-fannie-mae-and-freddie-macs-shareholders-n2042119

Interesting video of Jennifer O'Connor during testimony on the IRS scandal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyk1P-p56cE

David Stevens Why I Support Reforming the GSEs, Not Eliminating Them https://davidhstevensblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/why-i-support-reforming-the-gses-not-eliminating-them/

Government's next filing: "See! The market was down 500 points today. We told you that would happen... and all we did was ask the very same attorney that worked with us on the IRS scandal to be allowed to see the Fannie Mae documents. Markets roiled! Let us continue to steal property or the market might drop even more!" :)

When you factor in recent developments it sure looks like Obama is taking this situation very seriously. White House Counsel asking for access to info (I don't have access to PACER so I can't upload the actual document)... Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 233 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) (Judge Sweeney) APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO PROTECTED INFORMATION Pursuant to paragraph 7 of this Court’s Amended Protective Order dated July 29, 2015 (ECF No. 217), defendant, the United States, respectfully requests that Jennifer O’Connor, James Walsh, and Allison Murphy be permitted access to information protected by the Protective Order. All of the applicants are attorneys representing the United States within the meaning of Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order, and work in the Office of the White House Counsel. Counsel for the United States has consulted with counsel for plaintiffs, Fairholme Funds, Inc., et al. (Fairholme), who has indicated that Fairholme does not oppose these applications for access to protected information. Respectfully submitted, BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General s/ Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR. Director s/ Kenneth M. Dintzer KENNETH M. DINTZER Deputy Director Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 480 August 21, 2015 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-0385 Facsimile: (202) 307-0973 Email: Kenneth.Dintzer@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendant One of his most trusted advisors (Sharpton) giving advice... Yes, really. Sharpton is a quack and it makes me cringe each time I see him in the news with the title "Reverend" attached (gives Americans a grossly misguided view of Christ), but Obama does seem to give him his ear from time to time. If Sharpton and Obama are as close as some believe then Sharpton might be a helpful ally of ours (until Sharpton changes his tune). Take a look at this WP article from this past December... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/30/giulianis-claim-the-white-house-invited-al-sharpton-up-to-85-times/ Giuliani: "I think you missed one very important point. He has had Al Sharpton to the White House 80, 85 times. … You make Al Sharpton a close adviser, you are going to turn the police in America against you." There were a handful of meetings scheduled with Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior adviser who is a main point of contact between Sharpton and the White House. Of those 72 visits, five were one-on-one meetings. One of those meetings was marked as scheduled with the president. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Obama was aware of Sharpton's remarks before he made them. Obama could very well be greasing the wheels for release. Golf with Perry's attorney...

Thanks, morningstar. Anybody else have thoughts on my questions?

Assuming merkhet's assessment is correct (and I know he'd likely insert his disclaimer here) and it comes to a legal decision (no settlement), I have a couple questions. (1) How in the world will Steele lose the Delaware case? As the former Chief Justice he would likely have to grossly misinterpret law in his own state, a state in which he was arguably the most knowledgeable and experienced of the judge and attorney profession given his position. It's similar to a university mathematics professor making mistakes while helping his grade school child with his addition and subtraction homework. And using more than 50 pages to show his ignorance of basic addition and subtraction (reference to Steele's 50+ page case filing). Not impossible, but doesn't seem likely much at all. So... (2) If Steele wins the case, what actions can the government take that would prevent FNMAS from returning to par? They would obviously appeal the decision which would extend the process, but can the Delaware courts demand that dividends be reinstated for FNMAS while the case is going through the appeals process? Other than appealing, can the government just ignore the Delaware court decision? I'm trying to guesstimate how shareholders of FNMAS could get hurt even if Steele wins the Delaware case. It is becoming increasingly difficult to resist the urge to have an out-sized position in FNMAS. Many thanks for input!

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDUxNDQwNjExMTIwMzQzNjc3NDIBMDQ1ODMzNzk5MjUwNjMwMTk0ODQBV2hHWFdReUpCUUFKATAuMQEBdjI

http://www.fairholmefunds.com/subscribe Another e-mail was sent out today regarding FNMAS.

That might be it. Thanks for the input, Nate.

What is the motive for Berkowitz to send a special e-mail about the NYT memo? I'm not an investor in FAIRX... does Berkowitz send out e-mails like this frequently? If not, I wonder the specific reason (if any) that went through his mind to send out this particular piece of information (instead of any of the other dozen or so recent developments)?

Not sure how helpful I'm being, but here's a list of the pref tickers: http://www.fanniemae.com/portal/about-us/media/financial-news/2010/5086.html It's a question of liquidity vs. price paid as compared to par. If you have a position of size then liquidity might be important to you.

Is it just me or does it seem like the odds are extremely high of the former Chief Justice of a state winning in his old stomping grounds? And, if Steele and the plaintiffs were to win, wouldn't that bode very well for FNMAS shareholders? It's hard to imagine the former Chief Justice grossly misinterpreting the law in his own state. Maybe I'm missing something, but in my view, the odds of this working out very well for FNMAS shareholders have increased to materially above 50% and the risk $1/profit $4+ still remains. I don't even want to venture a guess as to the odds as that's impossible to tell, but it is looking better by the day. Am I way off-base with this line of thinking? Thanks in advance for your input!

Here you go: https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://twitdoc.com/upload/jonaprior/1-delaware-complaint.pdf

New case filed today in U.S. District Court (District of Delaware) fighting the 2012 NWS. Guess who is the attorney on the case? None other than Myron T. Steele, former Chief Justice of Delaware. I wonder who is going to win this case? ;) https://www.luminpdf.com/viewer/imZTDdPZ2EQeMDfNp

Obama's golf foursome today included Bill Clinton, Vernon Jordan, and Ron Kirk. Kirk just so happens to be Senior of Counsel at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher... Perry's law firm. I'm sure that's just a coincidence and a deal isn't in the works. :)