Desert_Rat

Or have 2 support groups, one for emotional suffering and one for being a humble winner. Held on the same night, same time in rooms across the hall from each other. That way people aren't inconvenienced for their particular mindset that day.

Honestly, what it means to me is the impossible. The only way to get FnF out of govt control while still using that govt as a means to cheap capital (for cheap mortgages), is to shut down FHFA and sign into law regulations that stipulate politicians like Clinton and Frank can't affect FnF's loaning guidelines. Either is about as likely to happen as an equally cheap funding source coming down the pike. But one big difference between Mnuchin and #crookedcorker is the former no doubt recognizes that the govt will always have to be sugar daddy, otherwise a disruption in housing will ensue, while the latter is a tool for TBTF banks and won't support that solution. In the end FnF will become exactly what they once were except for a few dinky regulations, kinda like today but with respected shareholders.

What kept from the state dept is his questionable trading tactics, and I agree with G about why he's treated like the tool he is. For apparently obvious reasons he won't lay off, why should FnF shareholders?

Which is a pretty important reason as to why this will eventually be resolved equitably. I never said the courts would overturn anything. Matter of fact I'm on record that the courts won't help us at all. But when the fraud is made even more obvious the govt will act. It has to.

After the decision from the appeals court that motive does not matter we have to ask ourselves what do we hope to gain with these documents. They could totally admit that they wanted to screw shareholders and take all profits and it won't matter. This is a see no evil/hear no evil judicial system when it comes to the net worth sweep. That entire ruling was littered with references about FnF needing capital infusions to stay afloat as late as 2012 and no proof that the FHFA acted under improper motivations, when the entire world, based on information that has come out, assumes the opposite. Yeah, I think proof of both could be gleaned from private communication between the principles around the time of their decision to go fully gangsta govt. And, yeah, there's a decent chance Millet and Ginsburg will feel had.

Time to reweigh, I'm down to 27.4%

"An investor should ordinarily hold a small piece of an outstanding business with the same tenacity that an owner would exhibit if he owned all of that business.” And another one... To make money in stocks you must have “the vision to see them, the courage to buy them and the patience to hold them.” And another one... You've gotta know when to hold them and gotta know when to fold them.... Games are won by players who focus on the playing field, not by those whose eyes are glued to the scoreboard

That's all well and good, but the issue isn't necessarily the WH. Sure, DJT deserves blame for his apparent inability to work with different factions, but the real issue is those factions. Nothing can be accomplished without majority support, and the WH actually has less of that than Obama did with minorities in both houses.

I'm beginning to get angry. http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/04/11/white-house-walks-back-timing-size-tax-cuts-puts-stock-rally-in-jeopardy.html Very angry. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-11/2017-debt-crisis-looms-congress-will-have-4-days-avoid-government-shutdown-april-29

Never heard of them, which is good because they would only irritate me: https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://fsroundtable.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Housing-Policy-Council-letter-on-S.-1217-Housing-Finance-Reform-Act-May-15-20141.pdf DeMarco may be a step up.

Is it 'rigging' when you artificially lower an artificially heightened rate? In the end they were right.

I'd say that another dozen arguments could be filed tomorrow since the whole deal, everything about it, stinks to holy hell. Maybe not tomorrow but I also suspect they will be. Then one day we will all be able to tell the grandkids that we beat the govt's butt with patience, and it actually paid us for it!

That said.. DJT: "Obama stealing from Fannie and Freddie to cover shortfall with his terrible healthcare plan" Would send FnF to the moon!

A view from the other side: http://www.breitbart.com/economics/2017/04/07/phony-obamacare-attack-aimed-at-luring-conservatives-to-support-a-hedge-fund-windfall/ Info-wars vs Breibart, oh lawd!

This is the most liquid preferred: http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FNMAS/history?p=FNMAS That isn't a selling spree, that's a lack of buyers and their fickle friends, the flippers. Given how even the staunchest Trump supporters are questioning his admin's ability to pass any bill, no one should be surprised by the weakness in this market. I mean, what's the hurry? But if the NY Times is publishing favorable tone on FnF, as many others also are, the pressure is increasing to fix this fraud. We are getting closer.

I dont get this either. Why would he stick his neck out on an issue like Fannie and Freddie if he didn't have strong views on the topic. Why didn't the guy just say he would leave it up to congress and he could care less if they went or stayed? What does he gain by going on TV and saying what he said? Why did he not affirm with Warner that he would not act unilaterally in the committee hearing? If you remember correctly the Dems refused to get him out of committee. You think he lied about Fannie and Freddie in Nov and "recap and release" as Warner put it just to make it harder for him to get nominated? Your skepticism about Mnuchin and GS is certainly warranted but starting to border on irrational given the context of what has transpired since Mnuchin went on TV in November. I dont think a non invested outsider looking at this would come up with your conclusions regarding Goldman Sachs etc. If anything, Mnuchin is more likely to lower thresholds for FnF as that would help his banker buddies and the less fortunate both. Do away with them though? nuts. Not only wouldn't he as an experienced CDO dude, but it wouldn't pass even if he wanted to.

Anyone who believes a court action is the only game in town needs to exit immediately. If I was smaht, which I'm not, I'd exit prior to Sweeney because it's likely to go as the others have. Beating the govt in court is extremely difficult. Throw in our recent defeats and the fact that our scenario came about because of a complete collapse of the world's financial systems, and good luck finding a court willing to give us (and our hedge funds) a break.

I'm sure the market's concern is over nothing getting done by this admin because Trump doesn't have the support. And if nothing gets done, can gets kicked down the road another 4 years. I can understand the repeal and replace failure because once those Ocare entitlements were given and Trump promised to continue at least two of them, they were locked in, but no fiscally responsible repub was going to support a new bill that maintained them. But besides that, I get the impression that this admin won't get anything accomplished because of total opposition from the Dems and those particularity staunch Repubs (FC). That means no tax reform, no draw, certainly no housing crisis, and no resolution. Unless court ordered, of course. It's a concern; It's always been numero uno to me.

Starts at 35:45 mark in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eupgMc9z1gE&feature=youtu.be I like the angle: Treasury stealing from homeowners via higher rates, possibly to fund Ocare! There's not much truth to it but it's certainly better than hedge funds looking to turn a profit.

What are you referring to? His tweet this morning only showed a retweet of spying by Susan Rice. Not sure and can't find the tweet now. Some mention of Trump lack of support in statement, then crash.

Any idea what Trump said or implied this morning? Supposedly he caused this.

True, but it's still a nice development if we assume FnF would be part of any significant housing reform, which is likely.

Did the market not read this? http://www.housingwire.com/articles/39757-ben-carson-housing-will-be-part-of-trump-infrastructure-bill?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=housingwire I've read that an infrastructure bill has the best chance of passing because infrastructure spending has the most bipartisan support. If Carson has intent of merging it with housing reform that should be very good news.

I can't see that happening though. Why go through steps to change parts of the NWS when the entire amendment has to be addressed?