doughishere

I never really bought the argument that winding up the companies gets rid of the duty to the shareholders. In the Western Insurance Case Mr. Caynes argument that Cooper is missing one word...."Wind up".. US Code 4617 a.2 states "The Agency may, at the discretion of the Director, be appointed conservator or receiver for the purpose of reorganizing, rehabilitating, or winding up the affairs of a regulated entity." What scares me is that he goes on to argue that "these are two-party agreements by sophisticated parties and Judge Lamberth properly found that the Plaintiffs could not transform their subjective conclusionary allegations into an actual claim that the third amendment was somehow overruled one sided, Your Honor." "The only thing that happened here is we had a business deal that provided for capital, that provided for financing, and the two parties to the deal, for reasons they deemed appropriate, decided to switch one mechanism, a periodic commitment fee, for another mechanism, a sweep, for so long as they agree to keep that alteration in effect. That's the entire story, Your Honor, of the third amendment." Basically....it was just another business deal involving "two-party agreements by sophisticated parties " Later on Ms. McElvaian states that the Treasury did not get new securities like Copper suggests but rather......" the third amendment did not commit any additional funds. The same amount of funds was capped in the third amendment as had been in the second amendment so no additional funds were committed and the entire point of this purchase restriction in the statute was to protect the taxpayer, protect the public of risk saying Treasury can commit essentially an unlimited amount of funds" I dont know if i buy her argument here but she states that since "There is no additional commitment of funds after 2009 so the purchase restriction has not been violated, but again to repeat, our position is that you don't even need to engage that analysis because we've already established that FHFA acted within its own powers as Conservator." I'd do find Coopers rebuttal to this to be sufficient enough to Ms. McElvaians statement but....Mr Caynes is the one that has the markets spooked along with me. Specifically....with the self dealing.....and i think that Epstein...has been banging on this war drum for the longetst time....July 2013 he states "the United States was on both sides of the transaction in a clear breach of the standard rule that all self-dealing transactions must be scrutinized to determine whether the shareholders' conservator provide them with fair value."

http://i.imgur.com/bA0tFRJ.gif

berkowitz is not afraid of taking on.....everyone. He has got to be supremely confident of this to be now taking on the board.

Pour it on them boys! http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/fanfredletter2030214.pdf

This is huge, nkp

Heres the 10k http://archive.fast-edgar.com//20140221/AA2ZA222H222L2S2222322328L4CZ2225862/

If you look at all the incentives involved, they all heavily line up on one side. Its not a matter of "analysis compromised by emotion." The truth is that the Treasury and FHFA have overstepped their mandate from congress. If the government did what it did as a private investor there would be no question as the value of the common and preferred being higher than where they are today. The facts here are simple. Much has been accomplished since the financial crisis: • Both companies have been stabilized so that investors and nations would continue to lend to them. • Management has been replaced. • Management has returned to the prudent underwriting standards that guided both companies to stability for decades. • Both companies provide affordable financing for tens of millions of Americans and enables them to buy a home to raise their families. • Both companies produce significant cash flow and stable profits. But, of course, in our opinion, much still needs to be done: • The Government’s senior preferred investment must be repaid in full, including a 10% annual return per the terms of the original capital infusion (possible in 2014). • Earnings must be allowed to stay within the companies (not paid out to stakeholders) to build up the capital base. • The companies should start paying the coupons on the pre-crisis preferred shares (reflecting the profitability of both companies). • The warrants to acquire 80% of the stock held by our Government should be sold off to new investors (who can contribute more capital if needed) generating a significant profit that can be used to pay down our national debt.

Nader firing more shots http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/207797531#fullscreen Yada, I'll try and take a crack at summing it up in the next few days.

The Untouchable Profits of Fannie May and Freddie Mac http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/business/the-untouchable-profits-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html?_r=1

Thanks Far East

Its probably a Nick Timiraos right? Mind posting the content?

This is starting to remind me about how ggp went down back in the day. First theres no deal that can possibly be made, no way anything but utter failure is possible. Then someone throws out a shitty plan that just ruins everyone. Then the plans get progressively better and better. By no means is common and prefs out of the woods yet but it is looking better. Honestly and everyone knows this but it does rest on the court cases.

Letter from Ralph Nader. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDUxNDQwNjExMTIwMzQzNjc3NDIBMTM4NDkwNDg5NzQ1NzQwNTI5MjgBb0xrYVFvbk5ZaDRKATQBAXYy

First paragraph

Washington Federal's Response 12/16/13 - Attached. WashingtonFederalResponse12162013.pdf

A lot of it has to do with the actions after December 2009 and the 3rd amendment that was undertaken in August 2012. Under 12 U.S.C. §§ 1455(l)(4) - Termination of authority The authority under this subsection (l), with the exception of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, shall expire December 31, 2009. Paragraphs 2 and 3 basically say that the treasury can sell the securities it owns and where it can get the funding from. Now had 12 U.S.C. §§ 1455(l)(4) included paragraph (1)....then yes they could modify the agreement after December 31st. 2009. I think you need to take 12 U.S.C. §§ 1455(l) in its whole....yes they could have unilaterally "Considered" the shareholders[ie 12 U.S.C. §§ 1455(l)(1)©(iii), (v)] and tossed them out but they had no authoity after Dec. 31st. So Perry claims that not only did they not have the authority to do so but they provided no "documentation" that they had considered the shareholders...in fact the takings happens after it is abundantly clear that they will be profitable again.