doughishere

Heh. Thanks Merk! Cherez et all.

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" You know. I sit here in bed. Just feel like I've been through a decade long war. I haven't been in this mix that long, heard about this trade though a Third Avenue letter but you know the new recruits are gonna file in here....(can't blame them with th kinda coin...it's why I singled up in this value investing "money" business) but I gatta tell the newbies GO live your life in the sciences or mathematics or medical or something else....this finance shit kills the spirit. This is my second "big" trade and I finally feel like my shit is almost together(hint: I'll never feel that way)....with that move the other day I'm a 1% at 31. No job-literally I quit my 9-5 to do this after ggp(heh I guess you could say im an ackman Millionare, at 31) a girlfriend who doesn't understand...I guess you could say I'm an Ackman Millionare....heh. But it's not the girlfriend that botheres me it's the guys/gals/whoever who are capable of understanding that just don't....it's the smart intelligent people who just can't stop looking at that carrot in front of them. You know just the other day I was reading some tweets mocking these boards...whose laughing now? The guys who twittered that will show up on the list of names at the bottom of the web page. Whose laughing now? Sad sack of shit is that I bet he's too behind the curve to figure out this Fannie and Freddie shit that he won't buy in...good for him, he hasn't done the work any investment on his part is speculation......he's still gonna balk...mistake of omission. Either way I'm not really mad I'm just trying to say that we are so rigid in our beliefs and that sometimes it pays to be a bit less cynical...heh I should take me own advise. I'm not even mad at the lying or fraud, I'm rich and young and have no obligations, trust me I'm not mad, but way kills me is the ability of some people to take take the fucking job of defending the lies just to put food on the table.....that's some shit right there. That's that fucking scares me. The lies I can believe...the fact that the common shares trade but th prefers(who get paid out first) don't trade at par right now...that the type of shit that scares the shit out of me.... In the the coloective( the markets are the collective opinion) opinion of everyone, I don't look at charts, but the fact that the liquidation prefereds are not trading at par vs the common which trade above par scares the shit out of me. Incentive. I guess that's what munger talks about when he talks about"getting the incentive right"....incentivize people to do something and the will do anything. How do you deal with that power? The halls of history are riddled with leaders that know that....the halls built with bodies as the mortar. I just don't know what I'm going to do now, "white male American problems" I guess that's the cross I'll just have to carry. To the kids reading this, go into the medical or sciences or be a dentist or be a teacher r baseball player, I understand the hypocrisy of what I am telling you, but the investing business only shows the shitty side of human beings....... I have fuckimg trader buddies who text me txt me about the trade.....fucking where were you 10days ago. In Irish poet once said,a paraphrase perhaps, "innocence is what you get in return after devoting yourself completely to something"...you get no return of such if you devote yourself to this business. That guy on Twitter called it ego, to much ego he said....it's not ego. It's recognizing reality...it moving and trying to make sense of an insane world. Something simple like recognizeing reality and knowing most people don't. I wish I could be that kid again at the Weiner Circle. My life is ruined.

I got a story about Theo. So this is right afterthe Cubs sign him, so naturally his contract size and length is the hot topic in Chicago sports circles. anyways, a buddy and I go out on a Wednesday night and just get trashed. To end the night we go to this hot dog joint famous for its Chicago styles, A place called The Weiner Circle. The Weiner circle is a place where you cuss and be rude and be vulgar to the staff and they are back at you. They have this thing called a chocolate milk shake....from Wikipedia, Customers commonly request a "chocolate shake," which is code for asking one of the female employees to shake her....yadda yadda yadda. Three guys and two girls come in, suits and ties and party dresses....I'm not thinking anything of it. A 4th guy, not with the group hands me his phone and asks me to take a picture of him with One of the suits. I take the phone and as I hand the phone back I ask, a little bit too loud, "Who is that?." Loud enough for Theo can overhear. So Theos buddies are getting food, we just kinda sit in the back and chat. No baseball talk, turns out he had some function with some lawyers from one of chicagos big firms, Kirkland and Ellis I don't know. They were hungry and wanted food.......so we're there and Theo reaches in his pocket and grabs a $20 and asks me "what I think" while flashing the bill. I smile, and say "sounds good". The wait is so excruciatingly long that he puts it back in his pocket to which I say "I think you can afford it." He looks at me seriously, smiles then just laughs, "your right, pulls the 20$ back out.... Tldr: Theo Epstein ordered milkshakes.

What are the odds of me getting into the hearing Friday. I may have a chance at being in dc on Friday?

More Bove. http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/04/bove-fannie-mae-news/ Depositions in GSE Case Show a Total Insensitivity to the LawThis Is Truly an Outrage Some Very Simple Points Here are some very simple points that have become available in the depositions in one of the Fannie Mae (FNMA/$1.48/Buy) lawsuits (I own this stock). 1. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 was very clear concerning what it wanted done to Fannie Mae. A conservatorship was to be created and the conservator was to return the company to health if at all possible. The depositions that I read indicate that at no time did anyone in the Treasury Department intend to do what the Congress had asked. The goal was to strip the company of its capital and its earnings thereby rendering it insolvent. It is as if Congress did not exist. 2. The depositions make clear that the government knew that Fannie Mae did not have to make cash payments on its senior preferred issue but that it could make a payment in kind or in stock. When the government forced the net profit sweep on the company it stated that the company did not have the cash to make the payment on the dividend. This was not a requirement of the preferred and the government knew it. 3. At the time, the Treasury forced the company into the net profit sweep it was evident that management of the company did not agree. The reason is that it had just shown the Treasury that it would be profitable for the next 10 years; that it was about to get $50 billion in equity by reversing its deferred tax asset arrangement; and that it was about to start collecting refunds from banks on bad loans. It had the money to make the payment the government claims it could not make. 4. Despite having been told that Fannie Mae was going to have its deferred tax asset returned to the company (the $50 billion mentioned) a Treasury official signed an affidavit stating that it had no such knowledge. 5. The decision rendered in the case before Judge Royce Lamberth was made without the benefit of having any of this information. The Judge simply did not want to know so he would not even listen to the lawyers making presentation in his court. His decision was rendered with no knowledge of the facts and no contact with the disputants in the case. 6. The government has hounded the banking industry for the past 8 years that it must increase transparency. Information must be made freely available to the public. Anyone who reads the depositions made available would be appalled by the lengths to which the government is going to obfuscate, hide, and destroy information. It is the ultimate hypocrisy.

Valueplays... http://www.valueplays.net/2016/04/12/unsealed-gse-litigation-documents-show-government-claims-in-filings-questionable-at-best/?utm_content=buffere1668&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer Daum!

Deposition of JEFFREY ALAN FOSTER This is fascinating stuff.

Aight....i'll keep doing it a bit....im gonna dramatize the sh*t out of this.... Mr. Ugoletti testamony. taken at the offices of Cooper & Kirk, 9:34 a.m., Friday, May 15, 2015. They talk about screenshots of finance.google.com and CNN.com. LOL Grant Thornton

Should I keep posting highlights....or are people sick of them?

Epstein on the John Batchelor Show. 4/11/16 Fannie, Freddie & the Long Shadows of 2008. @richardaepstein @hooverinst. http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/schedules https://audioboom.com/boos/4419874-fannie-freddie-the-long-shadows-of-2008-richardaepstein-hooverinst

Comments from Gretchen Morgenson.....

Q. (BY MR. THOMPSON) I mean, from your perspective, you were dealing with the Government, and you said you weren't surprised totally by the net worth sweep. I just really want you to explain why. MR. LAUFGRABEN: Same objections, and same instructions. A. I will tell you -- yeah. This is from my vantage point. I am not presuming what the Government was thinking or wanted. I am not trying to represent anything from them. I may represent my perspective on what they may have been thinking. I just sat down with them -- to the Treasury and said, "We think we're sustaining profitable." The numbers were decent-sized. I also put on the radar that there was a possibility of a deferred tax allowance release that could be sitting in the not-so-distant future. So the fact that this happened shortly thereafter -- so the time -- the time connection there was part of why -- that was part of why I wasn't surprised. Okay. I just told them that. So then the question is why would they be concerned of us making money and creating capital inside the enterprise. I think in my own opinion, a lot of -- a lot of people got wiped out, and the Government had to step in on a lot of fronts during the financial crisis. I think politically it seemed a little -- it would seem to me that there would be individuals bothered that some individuals might profit from the Government's support of the enterprises, okay? So, you know, it wouldn't -- would it be -- how would it play out if somebody made big bucks because -- off the backs of the taxpayers? I am kind of -- how some people could connect dots that the Government stepped in, put a bunch of money into the GSEs using taxpayers' funds, and now Daddy Big Bucks over here is making a big profit off of Fannie Mae stock. You could see how positioned that way, how that would be pretty politically unpalatable. I could see why there could be a concern that anybody plays things out that way. So, thus, why -- I wasn't trying to presume that they completely wanted to wipe out the shareholders, but I certainly would appreciate why there would be sensitivity of things playing out in a way that somebody would glob on to that story line. Does that make sense? Q. (BY MR. THOMPSON) Yes. Thank you. And let's go on.

Q. (BY MR. THOMPSON) This document says, "Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement: Treasury Draw Projections, October 24, 2011, Financial Planning & Analysis." Who was in charge of the financial planning and analysis of Fannie at this time? A. I believe it was Anne Gehring reporting to me. Q. Okay. And then if we turn to page -- I am going to refer to these Bates numbers -- these are the little numbers in the bottom right-hand corner -- 72478. It's the 13th -- A. 78? Q. Yes, 78. A. Okay. Q. And it shows projections of total net income. And if we look at 2020 out through 2026, it -- in this document, Fannie's projecting profits of about 10 billion a year; is that right? A. Yes - MR. LAUFGRABEN: Objection. Do you recall anyone at FHFA ever criticizing any of the projections of future profitability that Fannie was making in 2011 and 2012 up through the time of the net worth sweep? 6 MR. LAUFGRABEN: Object to the form of the question. A. I -- my recollection is there wasn't criticism. There were questions. There were cautions. In other words, you know, let's not forget that, you know, this -- that a lot of bad things have happened, right? And, you know, with some history in mind, when the declines were occurring, the degradations were occurring, the company was having a hard time keeping up with the face of the degradations. As a result, the forecasts that the company had been producing prior to my arrival -- and I am basing this on what I have been told, so I don't know if it's relevant here or not -- that the actual outcomes tended to be a little bit worse than what the company had been projecting. But when I got there, we focused very heavily on trying to continue to improve the quality of the forecasts. And I think if you look at the actual results vis-a-vis a lot of the forecasts we were producing, you would see the results and forecasts being more in alignment. In fact, it improved over time. Having had experience at other companies, that's not unusual that it's hard to catch up with trends, whether that's negative trends or positive trends

Dick Bove comments http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/04/fannie-mae-depositions-richard-bove/ Put that in your pipe and smoke it. #fanniegate Edit (3:45pm Eastern): The Link is https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2799861/Fannie-Freddie-Exhibit-C.pdf Q. (BY MR. THOMPSON) Did you think it was the effective nationalization of the companies? MR. LAUFGRABEN: Objection; form. MR. BARTOLOMUCCI: Objection; form. A. No, I didn't view it as nationalizing. It borders on that; I can see. But I had, shortly before that, had a meeting with Treasury whereby we reviewed our forecasts. I had expressed a view that I believed we were now in a sustainable profitability, that we would be able to deliver sustainable profits over time. I even mentioned the possibility that it could get to a point in the not-so-distant future where the factors might exist whereby the allowance on the deferred tax asset would be released. We were not there yet, but, you know, you could see positive things occurring. So when the amendment went into place, part of my reaction was they did that in response to my communication of our forecasts and the implication of those forecasts, that it was probably a desire not to allow capital to build up within the enterprises and not to allow the enterprises to recapitalize themselves. Q. (BY MR. THOMPSON) And with whom at Treasury do you have this meeting? Q. (BY MR. THOMPSON) And with whom at Treasury do you have this meeting A. So the -- which meeting? Q. The one you just referenced where -- A. Where I had the discussion about the forecasts? Q. Yes. A. So it was a common practice for us to meet with Treasury on a quarterly basis to review our results from the past quarter and to update them on our forecasts; Q. (BY MR. THOMPSON) And just to be clear on that, that would have been within a month of the Third Amendment? A. It would have been prior to that -- Q. Yes. A. -- because it's all part of the discussions we have through the quarter-end-close process and forecast preparation and Board prep and all that kind of stuff that takes place in that cycle. Q. Just so the record is clear, when you say,"prior to that," what period would that have been? A. Well, it would have been probably -- I would suspect it was -- something that occurred in July would be my -- because of the timing

Ain't that the truth. She denied the alternative to merely allow reference to the docs. I'm with @cherzeca. I think it is now more likely than before that Sweeney grants the Motion to Compel. Well I'm guilty of being egotistical, especially about all this, but it's still an up hill battle. As cherz says...spit 3 times.

It's fraud and misrepresentation

Ain't that the truth.

“I believed we were now in a sustainable profitability, that we would be able to deliver sustainable profits over time... We were not there yet, but, you know, you could see positive things occurring.” From a deposition with Susan McFarland on July 15, 2015. WOW Im on the road.....can anyone post that slide? THE CFO..... In her deposition, Ms. McFarland said that she believed her conversation with the Treasury propelled the government to change the terms of the bailout to seize Fannie’s and Freddie’s profits. “When the amendment went into place,” Ms. McFarland testified, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/business/fannie-mae-suit-bailout.html?smid=tw-share You know, I voted twice for Obama, Generally I agree with him on things.....hes going to go down as a great president...probably get a battleship named after himself, His foreign policy is truly amazing.....agree with him on the social issues that hes tried to advance....despite it bringing me more hardship(i could probably use more in my life).........but this whole GSE thing has just left a bitter taste. WOW

WOW

Heres a word doc in case the pdf is shit. 2010-05-26_FCIC_interview_of_Warren_Buffett_1.doc

lol

MR. BUFFETT: People were watching a movie and they thought the movie had a happy ending; and all of a sudden, the events on the screen started telling them something different. And different people in the audience picked it up at maybe different hours, different days, different weeks. But at some point, the bubble popped and it, for different people, they were seeing it at slightly different times.

MR. BUFFETT: It didn’t cause it, but there were a vast number of things that contributed to it. The basic cause, you know, embedded in psychology –- partly in psychology and partly in reality in a growing and finally pervasive belief that house prices couldn’t go down and everyone succumbed –- virtually everybody succumbed to that. But that’s –- the only way you get a bubble is when basically a very high percentage of the population buys into some originally sound premise and –- it’s quite interesting how that develops –- originally sound premise that becomes distorted as time passes and people forget the original sound premise and start focusing solely on the price action. So every -– the media investors, the mortgage bankers, the American public, me, my neighbor, rating agencies, Congress –- you name it -– people overwhelmingly came to believe that house prices could not fall significantly. And since it was biggest asset class in the country and it was the easiest class to borrow against, it created probably the biggest bubble in our history. It will be a bubble that will be remembered along with the South Sea bubble and the tulip-bulb bubble.

This is just fascinating stuff. The audio: http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/interviews/view/19 The Transcript is attached. Buffett doesnt get enough credit....that dudes a lion. ACFrOgAtsIObe_P9MydfYPhDwoqvTq0cjx-OY8raTmcwlJUH65QY4PonnUUhQv6xIJURvRUSn4I3yQGt5gbS8EM9xs4uD8wyXsww1k14KmMrBWn2TFicmFhwJPUF-6s=.pdf