Desert_Rat

"Ultimately, private capital in the mortgage market requires a transparent process that provides certainty and respect for the rights of investors, both in the current framework and in any transition to a future system." ? I interpret the language in the Blackrock proposal as discussing MBS investors, not GSE equity investors. Of course, as soon as ones interest is affected its ok to extol the rights of shareholders/stakeholders. No coincidence then Blackrock has the position they do in the white paper. That being said I think its probably best Mnuchin tries to respect rights for all shareholders/stakeholders. The common for example may get very unfavorable terms but not totally excluded. This would have the effect to quell ongoing lawsuits IMO. Big risk to reform would be a lawsuit requiring compensation years down the road. Again for my fellow conspiracy theorists Paulson dismisses the lawsuits and leans on a favorable solution from Mnuchin for shareholders. For lack of better reason or knowledge I still think its better to align myself with an Economic Adviser to the president and worry less about the situation as a result. As mentioned above all of these white papers maybe completely meaningless with Mnunchin knowing exactly what will happen already just going through the motions. Repeated and accentuated.

That's not negative, that's fact. Negative would be something like "Since courts have rejected each lawsuit brought by these bottom feeders we believe they have no rights going forward and will treat them as such; Poorly" I honestly don't care about any of this stuff because 90% of what we read is not going to happen. My primary concern is if housing reform is going to pass before all our assumed advantages expire. If it does we're golden. If it doesn't we will remain an elusive 10 5 bagger.

Thanks. Any idea what Corsi is objecting to?

I'd like to read that Blackrock whitepaper but I believe the gist of it is they don't care what happens to FnF as long as govt guarantee continues. Many will say BR is just protecting their book, which is legit but so is logic of govt guarantee. Seems as if Corsi has read it and gives big thumbs down, though.

"BlackRock wants to make sure they are interchangeable with Fannie and Freddie’s current bonds. That would prevent legacy debt from getting isolated in its own, dying market" Now that's something I've never considered. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-05/blackrock-says-don-t-recap-and-release-fannie-and-freddie?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

That was interesting. I listened to the whole thing and started to worry about what was in this H.R. 14, but Ellison was right at 4:27: Not one damn thing in it refers to FnF https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/10/text. So what was that whole back and forth about? Our govt in action. Hours wasted bitching about something they obviously know little about, and in the end rejecting the amendment they were asked to legislate but really did not.

But it's always been that way. The GOP, for law, can't stand us for reasons like the community reinvestment act while the lawless, heathen Dem's see us as a utility to help finance the poor. So on one side we have a group that would do away with us but regret the theft, and on the other a group that would prefer the NWS remain in perpetuity.

Love me some democrats https://twitter.com/DoNotLose/status/859628827647016960

Please share the quote. I haven't read anything even close to it. I think Mnuchin wants one thing, and one thing only. He wants to remove the treasury from picture and have FnF's debt guaranteed by private interests. That's it. He will take any and all suggestions about how to better handle FnF fate but that's not his priority. Please share the quote. I haven't read anything even close to it. Nobody knows what's going on. So far, we have all been tools. He has absolutely stated he wants to remove treasury from picture but not once said shareholders should be left out of picture. I'll concede that I should have used "in my opinion" but you were straight out pulling your opinion from your butt. He's said nothing even close to your statement, and if he had, these preferreds would be trading far lower today.

Please share the quote. I haven't read anything even close to it. I think Mnuchin wants one thing, and one thing only. He wants to remove the treasury from picture and have FnF's debt guaranteed by private interests. That's it. He will take any and all suggestions about how to better handle FnF fate but that's not his priority. Of course he has also Freudian slipped statements regarding our freedom, as that seems most prudent because the govt profits greatly, but he can be swayed, if not already. But that doesn't matter given how the democrats control both houses and the pres. They DO want FnF and control over housing finance and will likely get it. I think our wait ends with draw. No politician wants a continuation of bailouts. Until then we're in hiatus.

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1mnGeEMpZpAGX 14:22 mark

Agreed. If conversion to common, their max cut could be 79.9%, is that right? I never understood that. To me, 50.1% makes a controlling owner who needs to express liabilities on own balance sheet. but nope (obviously). If that, there's also issue with jr preferred accepting low cut. More lawsuits.

nice proposal, thank you icba. confused on the warrants into sr preferred comment in your pasted attachment -- was it a typo? Yes, I believe it was. The warrants are for common stock. I think: "The Treasury should exercise its warrants for AND senior preferred shares of GSE stock and convert those shares to stock in the new structure"

I like its idea on equity resolution but not its convolution of an operation that has been highly successful as is. Isn't "catastrophic mortgage insurance fund" pretty much what AIG offered? and it would be another layer on top of g-fees that will increase the cost of financing, while adding only pretty optics because if shit hits fan govt is covering losses anyway. It's not necessary. Govt has one of two choices: Stick with what's worked or increase the cost of home financing. Personally, I favor the latter but America won't.

https://twitter.com/tracyalloway/status/856030819906977792/photo/1

For those of us who have been on this trade for years we have learned that when things seem to be going well -reflected on a high priced stock- the time comes when some really bad news is thrown unto us: Lamberth ruling, Appeals ruling or Treasury/FHFA/WH press releases debunking rumors. We have gone through 3 big cold water splashes and numerous smaller ones. But this was intended as half a joke. Your one way to zero is not to be disregarded. Administration/FHFA could force receivership to wipe out equity before moving into a new scheme where new equity is raised. However, there are a few issues with this. Wiping out legacy after what we have gone through could send the wrong message to new investors. Or it could also reinforce the notion of no bailouts to anyone pointing at moral hazard. Another thing to consider is that many voices in the current administration (Calabria, Mulvaney) have stated the government has been paid back. If all this drags into 2018 there is a chance Trump may simply eliminate the Sr. preferred shares (hopefully Corker fails to extend Jumpstart). In which case, a receivership may grant full value to the Jr. shares. Or what Snarky has already stated. Remember, Calabria is big on receivership and he both understands and believes in the process. I would not be surprised he will try to see this working in an actual scenario. But I also believe the chance to see value re liquidation preference of the Jrs. is very high. Provided the Srs. get the boot before. Two things: 1) The courts have let us down, alone. The bias and political support are looking up. This is the better thing, imo, because the courts have never been keen on cleaning up this mess. The politicians had a point, in that they were protecting our way of life. That they were 100% wrong that this country wouldn't right itself naturally is not their fault, and the courts will forever respect that. 2) I am so sick and tired about the 'protect taxpayers' statements. No matter how much capital, no matter how keenly planned, if the shit hits the fan, like it did just 8 years ago, TBTF (like FnF) will be covered by the same treasury that has been propping up asset prices since we were seized by them. It's such a stupid, retarded, moronic, demand of progress.

The way it seems to go is that rulings have already been reached in all cases. But they are only being released as share prices become too frothy. Once prices reach unsustainable levels of speculation someone calls the courts and they drop the ax. So there you have the schedule: pay attention to share prices. And yes, I am assuming all courts are against us. That may be the most pragmatic+pessimistic (is there a word there?) thing I've ever read!

NYT, fake news and all has got our back. Not sure what I think about all that but I'm not complaining at this exact moment: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/business/a-revolving-door-helps-big-banks-quiet-campaign-to-muscle-out-fannie-and-freddie.html?smid=tw-share

I think that is what he is saying. Take a look: Competition can come later and only if the regulator charters out to other institutions . And we know banks will kill for such charter. I do not think Berkowitz wanted a gov. guarantee though. Maybe Ackman. Stevens plan may gather consensus from many parties. As well as shareholders provided we are part of the transition. Potentially more money for govt as well. I recall from way back that FnF's CDO algo's could be sold to replacement vehicles. Since FnF do their job so well I'll assume they're pretty valuable.

Joshua 10:25

I don't naturally, but if this admin can't accomplish anything anyway I'd look at it as a vote for stonewalling warmongering. If I'd consider this stance you can bet others will as well. But even if not, everyone should be concerned about DJT's lacking poularity, and the midterms. If we lose the house I think we lose our edge.

Gotta be before '19. With DJT's admin unable to accomplish anything except bombing folks, even I'd think about voting the house back to Dem's @ midterms. That would be a vote for no congressional approval on warmongering. If the house is lost that means anything that hadn't been accomplished by then gets stonewalled until 2020 when our present edge may be lost. There may be hope though: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/20/conservative-republicans-reportedly-pleased-with-changes-to-health-care-proposal.html

What's so hard to believe? The courts trust the govt, except in the case of immigration apparently, but they especially trust the govt and its steps taken to combat world-wide financial catastrophy (otherwise known as Lehman Brothers asset sale). they're all idiots. This country would be 10~ trillion less in debt if they all just calmed for 6 months.

Haven't seen this posted yet: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2017/04/13/430424/2008-housing-crisis I believe even tools like #crookedcorker recognize that piece as true. It's also a basis for my confidence.

There isn't one here and I'm a big fan