merkhet

Meaningful in what way? Like, does the Times filing have a shot?

The New York Times has asked for access to the documents. http://investorsunite.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NYT-Motion-to-Intervene.pdf

Nope. That's just the link Joe Light posted on Twitter.

Government filed a motion for an extension of time until July 13, 2015 to respond to Fairholme's motion to remove the "Protected Information" designation from the FHFA depositions. Sweeney has granted to motion. Also, Perry filed its initial opening brief today for the appeal. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/perryappealbrief0629.pdf

Finally, a status conference... and it's closed to the public.

His frustrations with building the new headquarters for Fairholme Capital Management.

Yea, it was sold a few years back, but it's open in both NYC & Las Vegas. (Not sure if the Vegas club is separately owned from the NYC club.) The funny thing is that I hosted a party there for a charity once, and it's very, very strange to go there during the day to speak with the owners. The thing is just a giant white box. Amazing what you can do with strobe lights, loud music and free flowing liquor!

Here's a link to the filing. http://bit.ly/1SOaptd Luke has pointed out something interesting in his post above. I'd like to add footnote 3 below:

I referenced the 2009 Sears shareholder letter in one of my responses. Anyone read it? http://www.searsholdings.com/invest/archives/feb09.htm

Can we also impose some board standards on the "tl;dr" responses of some posters? If you come onto the thread and say that the thread was too long so you didn't read through it and ask for a summary, how do you expect to read through a 10-K? Or years of 10-Ks? Read the damn threads, people.

Another motion to unseal things. **SEALED** MOTION to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Treasury and FHFA Documents , filed by All Plaintiffs. Response due by 7/13/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 06/24/2015)

Larry Kudlow is asking follow up questions on the Housing Wire article... as a friend said to me via Twitter, let's see if this thing has legs.

I just went through the Washington Federal complaint again, and it looks like the boards consented to the conservatorship, but the claimants allege that the consent was coerced.

Millstein just weighed in on the article as well.

Krugerrands are the clear solution to your problem.

Looks like Larry Kudkow just read that article. I'm curious to see if anything comes out of it.

I loved the story about how Vanderbilt engineered a short squeeze.

Eddie Lampert had a similar argument back in his 2009 letter to shareholders. I'm not sure how this would hold up in court, because I can't remember if the board consented to the appointment of the conservator or not. It's bad for public opinion, though.

Depends on how you view the provision in the SPSPA that says FHFA can't exit the conservatorship without the Treasury's approval.

Here's the counterpoint to the last video I posted: Oddly enough, despite being given an opportunity to clarify, in his own words, that GSEs have not yet paid back the full amount owed to Treasury, Lew once again talked only about the risk borne by taxpayers. It's not dispositive, but it's certainly strange. Notably, though, Lew once again reiterates that he thinks it's not yet time to end the conservatorship. We'll see if the threat of unsealing the depositions will change his mind.

I only briefly saw the face of the one guy, but I don't recognize him from the court room. I don't think that was one of the lawyers from the DOJ. My guess is that he's a staff member from Treasury. In other news... For those of you keeping score at home, these are the documents that allegedly show that Fannie & Freddie were on the road to recovery so that a circular draw would have been impossible -- brings to mind Berkowitz's recent quote in the Financial Times.

Capuano's question wasn't terribly vague.

It looks to me (biased, obviously) like the narrative has shifted from: "The GSEs have yet to pay back Treasury, so they need to be in conservatorship" to "The GSEs have paid back Treasury, but they are still risky, so they need to be in conservatorship." I suspect that this means that if they can come up with a way to "de-risk" the GSEs, then there would no longer be a reason for them to remain in conservatorship.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the first time that the Treasury has ever said that the GSEs have paid back every penny that they've borrowed and then some.

No, not necessarily. You're getting caught up in the fairness of the rate again. As I've stated before, the fairness of the rate does not matter in this particular case.