doughishere

His latest. Have a good weekend. https://www.oaktreecapital.com/docs/default-source/memos/economic-reality.pdf For example, lending people money can enable them to buy things today that they otherwise mightn’t have bought until later (if at all). If a consumer buys a boat today with money made available through a low-interest loan, that’s a boat he won’t buy next year. Lending people money doesn’t alter their lifetime incomes, meaning consumers may buy fewer boats later, when the loans have to be repaid, causing disposable income to contract.

I mean with out the hedge funds these emails would have never seen the day of light and we all would be oblivious to what happend........this is a murder where everyone involved is a witness and no one is willing to testify all because right now in America its not cool to be "pro business." http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/march-13-1964-new-york-woman-killed-while-witnesses-do-nothing/?_r=0 It is mystifying that we would rather talk about transgender bathrooms than this.....Call me out if I'm wrong. I dont mind being wrong, its a significant portion of how I learn.

seems like the only way the govt can escape appeals now is to convince the panel judges that motivation doesn't matter (as lamberth opined). we know thats not going to work with g, so they have to convince m and b to be successful I think thats a large reason why people stay out of it.....and thats the biggest argument against.......the argument that "well Fannie and Freddie should have never existed" or they are a cause......In reality it just seems like a concerted effort to punish "big business" so Parrott can make a name for himself as the guy who found funding for Obamacare. The idea that the motivation/behavior doesnt matter, the government is doing the larger good. This almost sounds like the public is at "Peak Big Business" hate.....and no politician will do what the government originally agreed to because they wont get reelected. I know my approach seems a bit..., as I think one of you put it.....end of the world. I dont think it is the end of the world but I do think that there was lying and as we can see there is at bare minimum "misrepresentation to the public" Please tell me if i am wrong in thinking this.....I take the silence as either 1) hes right and no one really wants to say anything or 2) i will now dawn my tinfoil hat.

Isnt this perjury or Obstruction of justice? I seem to remember a Impeachment trial for Clinton on the definition "sexual relations. I was still in grammar school but this seems way more loaded.

I will say this there are more and more people interested in this now and the coverage is only getting larger.....and larger.

Choice selections. I wish is could just quote the whole thing. More....

I don't read and understand legalese and the risk might be close to zero in FNMA/FMCC case as the resident lawyers explain, but it's not true in general. There are numerous class action lawsuits against companies where only people who owned it at the time of fraud/misrepresentation/whatever get compensated. So when you buy shares you may get economic rights, but you don't get the litigation result rights if the litigation is based on ownership at specific period of time in the past. Jurgis, you eyeing that dividend on the sr.prefs?

Now we are just going through the motions. I have nothing to back that statement up. Just a feeling.

This was talked about at that golf meeting a while back. I have a feeling the play has already been decided.....

Can anyone get in contact with Lawrence Cunningham and get the actual recordings?

That Picture of Ackman.

Sorry it's just a repost of old stuff.

The Legal Eagles(Cherz,Merk, Berk) back at it. Got and email from Bruce. Dear Investor, The release of fifty-three additional documents pertaining to the 2012 “Net Worth Sweep” reveals “a brazen attempt, by a group of former White House, United States Treasury, and Federal Housing Finance Agency officials, to apparently violate the spirit and perhaps letter of the law, [and] exceed their statutory authorities […]” explains GSE analyst Josh Rosner in a document published this week. The PDF is available at the following link: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/GFCo.-GSEs-Former-WH-Officials-Involved-in-GSE-Scandal.pdf We also encourage you to visit www.fanniefreddiesecrets.org to view news coverage and other important materials, including the unsealed documents. Kind regards, Investor Relations Fairholme Funds, Inc. 4400 Biscayne Blvd. 9th Floor Miami, FL 33137 To unsubscribe, click here

https://www.scribd.com/doc/313724921/GF-Co-GSEs-Former-WH-Officials-Involved-in-GSE-Scandal GrahamFisher - Josh Rosner. Isnt this like perjury?

Yeah who cares about Carney. Thanks Merk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBecM3CQVD8

Does the FHFA hire the banks as consultants? BNP Paribas gets their emails forwarded straight to the top.

Whoever gets on in QA mode, if there is a QA, the very first question someone should ask is if they are in settlement talks or has anyone been approached by anyone. This is no secret anymore. You can bet Trump knows with his meeting this week, You know Hillary knows and everyone in between. No one can pretend they dont know about F&F, or the situation they are in, ........... I dont want to get a rehash of the same story weve heard the last 25 times. We all know the story to this point. I feel like im waiting for G.R.R.Martin's next book.

Didnt Obama have a golf outing last summer with the lawyers for Fairholme ?

That's a possibility. Another B.Mac article on Friday?

Another volley... Pour it on them, Dick. Pour it on.

Thats the sound of your mind exploding.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/05/fannie-mae-secret-docs/ Dick Bove: More Documents Revealed Concerning Fannie Mae “The game has clearly changed here”

Some of the commentary...myself included. Leslie Luk over at SeekingAlpha: Cant wait for the parade of commentary to come out after Fridays revelations.

"I'll put my money on Secretary of State for Corker," Republican U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., told the Times Free Press on Saturday at the Bradley County Republican Party's annual Lincoln Day gathering. Chattanooga Times Free Press http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/politics/elections/story/2016/may/23/desjarlasees-cabinet-post-corker-trump-admini/366982/

Fannie and Freddie. Here's how I think about the bailout/nationalization/whatever of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Once upon a time they were quasi-public utilities where the government took the ultimate risk of guaranteeing mortgages but gave the profits to private shareholders. Then, in 2008, they collapsed, and the government had to bail them out. This seemed very unfair to people at the time, and so they naturally assumed that shareholders would lose their entire investment. If the government was going to take all the downside in Fannie and Freddie, it would take all the upside too. But for reasons having to do with, basically, accounting, when the government took over Fannie and Freddie it took about 80 percent of the ownership, not 100 percent. At the time -- September 2008 -- this seemed like a trivial difference. Things were crazy in September 2008! It was hard to imagine getting through the next week, never mind getting back to a place where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were profitable and anyone wanted to argue over that 20 percent of the stock. (Plus some preferred stock.) But eventually things did get better, and the government realized that it had left 20 percent of Fannie and Freddie's stock in private hands, and so, in mid-2012, it more or less grabbed it. (This is called the "Third Amendment.") Then the shareholders sued. This is not the official story, and probably no one on either side would entirely agree with it, but I think it's more or less right. The government will tell you that things never really got better, and that even today Fannie and Freddie aren't really profitable, but this is an extremely boring argument about, again, accounting. (How do you compute how much preferred stock is outstanding and paying coupons? What is the proper fee for the government to charge for support? What about deferred tax assets?) No one quite believes that the government took over all of Fannie and Freddie in the 2012 Third Amendment out of pure disinterested concern for the companies' well-being. Everyone assumes that zeroing the shareholders was also an important motivation. Anyway here is Gretchen Morgenson on some newly uncovered e-mails and stuff making it really clear that zeroing the shareholders was also an important motivation: An email from Jim Parrott, then a top White House official on housing finance, was sent the day the so-called profit sweep was announced. It said the change was structured to ensure that the companies couldn’t “repay their debt and escape as it were.” This cannot really be a surprise to anyone, but the government has spent the last few years, bizarrely, denying that punishing the shareholders was a motivation for the Third Amendment. It does not strike me as legally all that important, but honestly the legalities of the Fannie/Freddie lawsuits are a bit beyond me. I am a bit torn about the justice of the situation, though. On the one hand, in 2008, it really was probably fair for Fannie and Freddie shareholders to lose their entire investment. But they didn't. And once the government had left 20 percent of the companies in shareholders' hands in 2008, it was a bit rough to take it back in 2012. Bloomberg View Matt Levine's Money Stuff