stevevri

i would think mnuchin's interest in paulson's advantage should be either be transferred to another party or donated to charity Same content as the WSJ article basically (WSJ goes a little deeper) but he will divest. WSJ says "that he wouldn’t participate in any matter that has a “direct and predictable effect” on their (Fannie/Freddie) interests until he had divested or unless he received a written waiver." http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2017/01/mnuchin-to-divest-positions-in-citigroup-goldman-233474

It's on Pacer. It is real. Lots more too.... Attached is just part of it. 01512287199.pdf

https://twitter.com/nsfraudbuster/status/745588295715823616 This is floating around Twitter today... Anyone know if more documents were released?

Here's a question... Couldn't Fannie and Freddie redeem the Senior preferred themselves? Obviously the sweep stops them from being able to do so but if that was stopped or reversed by a court or they won a settlement. The jumpstart specifically says "Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any provision of the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement". The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement obviously indicates they could pay the government back.

Yup. I think you're pretty spot on here. This is not an easy problem and it's going to take more then just cutting things. It's going to take multiple steps and many different actions and take time and patience. I also wonder if they have the flexibility needed to get out of this. The eurocrats seem very inflexible in their approach. It seems like decisions are made more for various political reasons than for what will get Greece operating strongly again

So you want to harm the people making less that can't afford newer cars with better gas mileage, whom also drive further to work because they can't afford to live in the expensive cities?

As an interesting side note, it is also a cultural thing, derived from centuries of occupation by the Ottoman empire. Who wants to pay taxes to an occupying force? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Greece your history lesson for today ;D cheers Zorro To be fair that kind of thing is very common in history. There was frustration with Roman Tax collectors. Heck America was founded on frustration with being taxed without representation. Countless examples. That being said I'm not drawing this conclusion haphazardly. I've been to Greece and have family that still lives there. People avoid toll roads because they believe the toll taker is keeping the money. And the way things work they probably are. There is that at play.

The word austerity has become too dirty and talk of it way too dogmatic instead of practical. If spending is wasteful in government then in the long run you will benefit from cutting that spending. Why do you think the Greek people haven't been paying their taxes? Because they don't want to? No.. because they don't trust the government and how it's being spent.

Whining about being estate taxed at 5 million forgets that though 5M might be just a house in Los Altos or a condo in NYC, it is enough to retire and not work for the rest of your life in the rest of the country. I somewhat agree that this could be adjusted a bit depending on the number of people inheriting. I have 13 other cousins. Had my grandmother left us each an equal amount, that would be $17 million divided by 14. That would be $1.2m each. Damn, I can't even appoint myself as mayor with that much money. This is being driven by jealousy more than logic. "It's not fair that he got something without working for it -- jeez, it must be nice to have a rich grandmother!" With a bunch of specious logic to call it something other than envy: "No, the very fabric of democracy is at stake here! The mayors race can be swayed!" Which is completely ridiculous. I don't even remember if I'm registered for a political party, and don't really give a crap who the mayor of my town is. Therefore, I should be taxed because "What if I did care and was a total crook!". That's like punishing somebody for a crime that they might be tempted to commit. The irony is people overly concerned with "fairness" of this sort end up making everyone but those same elites they claim is the reason for policy, worse off. Those people avoid the policy or are less affected while your grandmother in the example pays it all. The super rich are used in the examples yet the policies go lower and lower and widen the gap between others and those super rich.

I wont be/wasnt able to listen. Please let us know if anything good was said. It was a pretty unsophisticated look. Wallison pretty much paraded the opinion that Fannie and Freddie have only paid interest and not the principal, remain dangerous and continue to grow, and could need another bailout. No mention of the sweep. Kudlow didn't challenge any of it. It focused more on the fact Fannie/Freddie made a ton of donations to Clintons and Obama in the past (yet they are barred from making any political contributions right now).

There's a large camp that seems to think a conversion to the drachma is easier then it is. The problem comes from the fact the country is dependent on others for oil, and many other imports. Even Varoufakis said this in one of the talks people reference as saying his plan was to switch to the Drachma. The less dependent you are on others and the more resources and reserves you have the easier it is to do so. Greece is not exactly in such a position.

To be honest, I don't know what to make of the new government and whether they can execute or not. It's a bold list and bold merits skepticism to me. At first I thought they were being brilliant with negotiations. There is a general frustration with the Greeks from the rest of the EU (particularly Germany) to begin with. Other countries don't like seeing this act and are worried about similar uprisings and chaos in their own country if this is rewarded. There is definitely something to the fact the EU doesn't like how they are playing the game. I'm not so sure I can blame them for that either. The EU would rather they play the game and if it doesn't work they adapt later. It's a lot easier as outsiders seeing what's rational here and splitting the middle.

I'm Greek American and both sides of my family are from Greece and got the heck out of there for better opportunity. The talent drain has been going on for decades already. While I think they need a debt haircut, there are structural problems with their economy and government that can not be worked through quickly. The reasons they got to these unsustainable levels of debt are the primary forces at work here more so then any pension cuts or such. It shouldn't be a surprise that things have not improved quickly when you're dealing with decades of government mismanagement, tax avoidance and sweeping the problems under the rug.

One other possible thing. In Maniere it notes: "Specifically, as the plaintiff purchased the subject shares after the enactment of FIRREA and after the effective date of the OTS regulations" "The defendant demonstrates that the FIRREA was passed and the regulations which precluded the computation of goodwill as a capital asset became effective before the date on which the plaintiff purchased the subject shares" It would seem to my amateur opinion there is quite a difference between the sweep and the enactment of legislation (FIRREA) and regulatory changes (OTS)? Counting goodwill differently by law and regulation, and seizing actual profits, is quite different.

I am not and I am thankful for your commentary. Just attempting to learn. Thank you for the clarity.

Another thing to just throw out there. In the case of Maniere it says: "agreement between government and institution specifically excluded benefit to any third party." This seems like a key distinction if the contract itself specifically excluded that. In that case what was 'taken' was given under a contract that had a third-party exclusion. I suppose much like DTAs that are not good in a change of ownership or something like that?

Is anyone familiar with Slattery v the US at all? There's some interesting elements that are tangent to this case. Namingly, it tackles the who should be compensated current shareholders or former shareholders. In Summary: The government made a deal with Meritor Bank to hold certain types of goodwill as capital, and then later on seized the bank saying it was inadequately capitalized and went back on its agreement. They eventually won and held the government to its original word even though it took many years. Later on shareholders at the time of the seizure that had sued saying they should be the ones compensated and the court found that it was "current shareholders" that were proper recipients of receivership surplus. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/12-5041/12-5041-2013-03-21.html Disclaimer: I have no special legal knowledge or anything and may be messing some details up.

http://sedar.com/search/search_form_pc_en.htm You have to search "Fairfax India" from there.

Only place I see that is Bloomberg. They could be wrong

It's not just a Bloomberg report. This is the 13F Cover Page. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1056831/000091957414006682/xslForm13F_X01/primary_doc.xml It has this: "For purposes of this Form 13F-HR for the third quarter of 2014, the filer is not disclosing its holdings in both Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp and Federal National Mortgage Association, because such securities are not included on the Official List of Section 13(f) securities released by the Securities and Exchange Commission."

The SEC defines "Section 13(f) securities". It's under Question 7 on this page. They maintain a quarterly list of of those securities at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13flists.htm Seems like because they are off exchange and not listed they wouldn't have to list them.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-14/fairholme-exits-fannie-freddie-common-limits-disclosures.html Bruce exited the Common, and will no longer disclose preferred because they don't have to apparently. “We remain steadfast in our belief that — at a minimum –- shareholders are due just compensation,” Berkowitz said in a letter to investors dated Oct. 1 about the Fannie-Freddie stake. “We will continue to pursue our legal rights.”

Now we really know why Sears invested in RH, and tried to buy it.

These are good reference (and I'm sure in this thread someplace else): http://www.freddiemac.com/investors/preferred_stock.html http://fanniemae.com/portal/about-us/investor-relations/stock-information.html

More from Epstein: http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2014/10/02/godzilla-versus-the-thing-the-wall-street-journals-improbable-defense-of-judge-lamberths-indefensible-decision-in-perry-capital/