FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

[racemize]

its official, government has won writ in part. what we presumed to be the most damaging docs (white house communications) were granted writ, so they wont be unsealed. im disappointed no one except carney saw this coming..

 

link?

[hardincap]

http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/17-1122-0018.pdf

[Guest cherzeca]

its official, government has won writ in part. what we presumed to be the most damaging docs (white house communications) were granted writ, so they wont be unsealed. im disappointed no one except carney saw this coming..

 

decision not yet post on court site, but if hardincap says it, it must be true

 

i guess sweeney made a clear error with respect to executive privilege (will be interesting to read opinion to see why)

 

if writ grant tied closely to executive privilege but not granted to other claims of privilege, then this may open door to production of many other docs currently withheld under claim of privilege (depending upon opinion language)...of course, remember, soon atty gen sessions will be in charge of DOJ making all of these decisions

[Guest cherzeca]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2a6ishhxi9kuk0z/ct%20fed%20appeals%20writ%20mandamus.pdf?dl=0

 

mandamus writ opinion. 

[Flynnstone5]

its official, government has won writ in part. what we presumed to be the most damaging docs (white house communications) were granted writ, so they wont be unsealed. im disappointed no one except carney saw this coming..

 

decision not yet post on court site, but if hardincap says it, it must be true

 

i guess sweeney made a clear error with respect to executive privilege (will be interesting to read opinion to see why)

 

if writ grant tied closely to executive privilege but not granted to other claims of privilege, then this may open door to production of many other docs currently withheld under claim of privilege (depending upon opinion language)...of course, remember, soon atty gen sessions will be in charge of DOJ making all of these decisions

 

 

Does this mean that P's have no other recourse (other than SCOTUS) to obtain the 8 docs particularly Document 19, UST 00521902? Also, does Sweeney have authority to release the docs publicly that Fairholme does receive?

 

[Mephistopheles]

Well, my theory that there may be a settlement in works is out the window.

 

A nice parting FU to property/business owners from the "most transparent administration in history".

[SnarkyPuppy]

Why are the shares reacting positively to this...?

[HalfMeasure]

"FHFA and Treasury turned over approximately 48,000 documents, but refused to produce 58 documents.  The government asserted the deliberative process privilege with respect to all or part of 52 of the documents, asserted the presidential communications privilege as to all or part of four documents, and asserted the bank examination privilege with respect to eleven documents"

 

I thought that the 58 documents were just a sample of a larger number of documents that the government refused to produce - the way this is written makes it sound as if they only refused to produce 58 documents.

[orthopa]

This and the Mnunchin vote tonight maybe give some light into the big preferred volume friday.

 

As far as Berkowitz, Paulson adding more there have been a couple days of 10million + volume in FNMAS since Mnunchins TV statement. Thats ~half a billion at todays prices.

[SnarkyPuppy]

This and the Mnunchin vote tonight maybe give some light into the big preferred volume friday.

 

As far as Berkowitz, Paulson adding more there have been a couple days of 10million + volume in FNMAS since Mnunchins TV statement. Thats ~half a billion at todays prices.

 

I don't understand why any institution would trade on MNPI, which this clearly would be...

[investorG]

assuming the 8 documents were the juicy ones, this greatly reduces the chances of perry reversal --- correct or no?

[Guest cherzeca]

"FHFA and Treasury turned over approximately 48,000 documents, but refused to produce 58 documents.  The government asserted the deliberative process privilege with respect to all or part of 52 of the documents, asserted the presidential communications privilege as to all or part of four documents, and asserted the bank examination privilege with respect to eleven documents"

 

I thought that the 58 documents were just a sample of a larger number of documents that the government refused to produce - the way this is written makes it sound as if they only refused to produce 58 documents.

 

appellate ct seems to have missed that govt withheld over 11,000 docs, of which the 56 were a sample.  sort of gives light to the quality of courts analysis generally

[Fat Pitch]

Courts are saying that the 8 docs not produced are docs that shareholders should not be worried about since the content is already revealed in other sources that are now available to us. This looks like a victory or am I missing something?

[Guest cherzeca]

assuming the 8 documents were the juicy ones, this greatly reduces the chances of perry reversal --- correct or no?

 

since we dont know how juicy, no one can tell.  i dont believe the perry ct was waiting on this opinion in any event

[Guest cherzeca]

Courts are saying that the 8 docs not produced are docs that shareholders should not be worried about since the content is already revealed in other sources that are now available to us. This looks like a victory or am I missing something?

 

the court just didnt say that the executive privilege applied, game over for those 6 docs, it went on to analyze generically what was in those 6 docs, and found that nothing in docs was relevant to Ps claims, 3rd A, DTAs etc.  so while i am sure Ps would have loved to read docs, the court is saying that the Ps needed to show real need to overcome executive privilege, and these docs just didnt have smoking gun type material that Ps would have really needed.

 

still, i think the manifest error/abuse of discretion standard should have argued for affirmance of sweeny...

[Luke 532]

This looks like a victory or am I missing something?

 

Joshua Rosner seems to think so per the attached images.

[Mephistopheles]

This and the Mnunchin vote tonight maybe give some light into the big preferred volume friday.

 

As far as Berkowitz, Paulson adding more there have been a couple days of 10million + volume in FNMAS since Mnunchins TV statement. Thats ~half a billion at todays prices.

 

I don't understand why any institution would trade on MNPI, which this clearly would be...

 

Not necessarily. We are investing based on our perception of Paulson's relationship with Mnuchin; Paulson could be doing the same thing. Only thing is that he has a much better idea of not only their relationship but of Mnuchin's style/views. Mnuchin doesn't have to flat out tell them that "I will release the GSE's and pay your money back at par". Or, he could have told them that before he was even nominated for the job, in which case it wouldn't be MNPI. Or, Trump could have indicated his loyalty to Paulson back when Paulson held the fundraiser. Plenty of easy and obvious ways to to avoid illegality.

[TonyG]

So do they gotta turn these over asap?

[hardincap]

isnt this somewhat a subjective judgment? frankly, i dont trust the appellate judges to get this right without adequate time to gain a full understanding of the nws. sweeney has spent 3 years on this so far and unequivocally concluded these documents matter. this almost seems like a cop out excuse

 

the court just didnt say that the executive privilege applied, game over for those 6 docs, it went on to analyze generically what was in those 6 docs, and found that nothing in docs was relevant to Ps claims, 3rd A, DTAs etc.  so while i am sure Ps would have loved to read docs, the court is saying that the Ps needed to show real need to overcome executive privilege, and these docs just didnt have smoking gun type material that Ps would have really needed.

[doc75]

isnt this somewhat a subjective judgment? frankly, i dont trust the appellate judges to get this right without adequate time to gain a full understanding of the nws. sweeney has spent 3 years on this so far and unequivocally concluded these documents matter. this almost seems like a cop out excuse

 

This was my take, too.

[Flynnstone5]

Courts are saying that the 8 docs not produced are docs that shareholders should not be worried about since the content is already revealed in other sources that are now available to us. This looks like a victory or am I missing something?

 

the court just didnt say that the executive privilege applied, game over for those 6 docs, it went on to analyze generically what was in those 6 docs, and found that nothing in docs was relevant to Ps claims, 3rd A, DTAs etc.  so while i am sure Ps would have loved to read docs, the court is saying that the Ps needed to show real need to overcome executive privilege, and these docs just didnt have smoking gun type material that Ps would have really needed.

 

still, i think the manifest error/abuse of discretion standard should have argued for affirmance of sweeny...

 

Could it mean that the smoking gun and/or relevant docs turn out to be the one's actually released (the 48)? In other words, the docs they decided to protect contained info. already available in the 48 and therefore deemed not relevant to P's claims. Or is that not possible/doesn't make sense?

 

"or will be available given our decision to leave the bulk of the disclosure order undisturbed."

[SnarkyPuppy]

This and the Mnunchin vote tonight maybe give some light into the big preferred volume friday.

 

As far as Berkowitz, Paulson adding more there have been a couple days of 10million + volume in FNMAS since Mnunchins TV statement. Thats ~half a billion at todays prices.

 

I don't understand why any institution would trade on MNPI, which this clearly would be...

 

Not necessarily. We are investing based on our perception of Paulson's relationship with Mnuchin; Paulson could be doing the same thing. Only thing is that he has a much better idea of not only their relationship but of Mnuchin's style/views. Mnuchin doesn't have to flat out tell them that "I will release the GSE's and pay your money back at par". Or, he could have told them that before he was even nominated for the job, in which case it wouldn't be MNPI. Or, Trump could have indicated his loyalty to Paulson back when Paulson held the fundraiser. Plenty of easy and obvious ways to to avoid illegality.

 

I was talking about specifically fruntrunning a legal ruling.

[waynepolsonAtoZ]

Regarding the question of selling common to buy preferreds, when FNMA is a $4 and FNMAS is at $9 (let's say) switching isn't an easy decision to make. Essentially, selling 1000 shares of common gets you less than 500 shares of preferreds. That's a pretty big hit.

 

Still, I like the preferreds better, but that's easy for me to say, I bought FMCKJ when it traded at a 10 cent premium to the common.

[Mephistopheles]

This and the Mnunchin vote tonight maybe give some light into the big preferred volume friday.

 

As far as Berkowitz, Paulson adding more there have been a couple days of 10million + volume in FNMAS since Mnunchins TV statement. Thats ~half a billion at todays prices.

 

I don't understand why any institution would trade on MNPI, which this clearly would be...

 

Not necessarily. We are investing based on our perception of Paulson's relationship with Mnuchin; Paulson could be doing the same thing. Only thing is that he has a much better idea of not only their relationship but of Mnuchin's style/views. Mnuchin doesn't have to flat out tell them that "I will release the GSE's and pay your money back at par". Or, he could have told them that before he was even nominated for the job, in which case it wouldn't be MNPI. Or, Trump could have indicated his loyalty to Paulson back when Paulson held the fundraiser. Plenty of easy and obvious ways to to avoid illegality.

 

I was talking about specifically fruntrunning a legal ruling.

 

I don't think that occurred in this particular situation...who would know ahead of time of the writ ruling today aside from the judges involved and perhaps the clerks, let alone its content?

[BTShine]

The legal rulings and Mnuchin's moves in the Treasury office are two entirely separate things.