HalfMeasure Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 if cooper withdraws from law firm no reason why firm cant continue to rep fairholme as long as cooper doesnt work on GSE cases at DOJ. however i imagine he could make his view known within DOJ that these cases deserve a hard relook by the trump admin DOJ (for the sake of the DOJ as an institution). must say i have never seen this situation before... Would he have to have zero economic interest in Cooper & Kirk? Indeed a very interesting situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 if cooper withdraws from law firm no reason why firm cant continue to rep fairholme as long as cooper doesnt work on GSE cases at DOJ. however i imagine he could make his view known within DOJ that these cases deserve a hard relook by the trump admin DOJ (for the sake of the DOJ as an institution). must say i have never seen this situation before... Would he have to have zero economic interest in Cooper & Kirk? Indeed a very interesting situation. yes. cooper is the rainmaker at that firm. if he takes SG, i wouldnt be surprised if the firm merges with another larger firm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 if cooper withdraws from law firm no reason why firm cant continue to rep fairholme as long as cooper doesnt work on GSE cases at DOJ. however i imagine he could make his view known within DOJ that these cases deserve a hard relook by the trump admin DOJ (for the sake of the DOJ as an institution). must say i have never seen this situation before... Would he have to have zero economic interest in Cooper & Kirk? Indeed a very interesting situation. yes. cooper is the rainmaker at that firm. if he takes SG, i wouldnt be surprised if the firm merges with another larger firm. Chris, thank you for those awesome links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Can anyone comment on the situation regarding statue of limitations with respect to what is and is not possible regarding the conservatorship? As I'm sure many have, I just read Charlie Harrison's new article on SA. I would love to believe much of what he proposes, but I'm not sure that what he's saying is even legally possible. In addition, the theory of treasury returning money to the gse's seems way far fetched. http://seekingalpha.com/article/4037336-fannie-mae-valuing-preferred-versus-common-trump-privatization-settlement?v=1484681981&commenter=1&comments=show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Can anyone comment on the situation regarding statue of limitations with respect to what is and is not possible regarding the conservatorship? As I'm sure many have, I just read Charlie Harrison's new article on SA. I would love to believe much of what he proposes, but I'm not sure that what he's saying is even legally possible. In addition, the theory of treasury returning money to the gse's seems way far fetched. http://seekingalpha.com/article/4037336-fannie-mae-valuing-preferred-versus-common-trump-privatization-settlement?v=1484681981&commenter=1&comments=show ignore harrison. his argument that fnma common may = $15-22 is plausible; his argument that it could be worth $75-110 is not plausible. the guy provides no value add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Can anyone comment on the situation regarding statue of limitations with respect to what is and is not possible regarding the conservatorship? As I'm sure many have, I just read Charlie Harrison's new article on SA. I would love to believe much of what he proposes, but I'm not sure that what he's saying is even legally possible. In addition, the theory of treasury returning money to the gse's seems way far fetched. http://seekingalpha.com/article/4037336-fannie-mae-valuing-preferred-versus-common-trump-privatization-settlement?v=1484681981&commenter=1&comments=show ignore harrison. his argument that fnma common may = $15-22 is plausible; his argument that it could be worth $75-110 is not plausible. the guy provides no value add Appreciate the response. I entered this with the expectation of positive court ruling, warrants exercised at a higher strike per settlement and a pps of $20-$25 for common, par on prfd. Reading his article started me thinking about possible consequences if all documents were eventually released and were as damaging as many think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunrider Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I thought we had been through this question of whether all current shareholders benefit from damages awarded about two hundred pages ago on this thread (probably in the context of whether current shareholders have standing) :) Chris - one question though - the clause he cites from the SPSA seems an interesting find. However, even if this implies what he thinks it does, it's hard to see for even the Trump Treasury to just reverse everything, including warrants, and walk away from $b of value. Your take on this clause? Thank you. C. Can anyone comment on the situation regarding statue of limitations with respect to what is and is not possible regarding the conservatorship? As I'm sure many have, I just read Charlie Harrison's new article on SA. I would love to believe much of what he proposes, but I'm not sure that what he's saying is even legally possible. In addition, the theory of treasury returning money to the gse's seems way far fetched. http://seekingalpha.com/article/4037336-fannie-mae-valuing-preferred-versus-common-trump-privatization-settlement?v=1484681981&commenter=1&comments=show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I thought we had been through this question of whether all current shareholders benefit from damages awarded about two hundred pages ago on this thread (probably in the context of whether current shareholders have standing) :) Chris - one question though - the clause he cites from the SPSA seems an interesting find. However, even if this implies what he thinks it does, it's hard to see for even the Trump Treasury to just reverse everything, including warrants, and walk away from $b of value. Your take on this clause? Thank you. C. Can anyone comment on the situation regarding statue of limitations with respect to what is and is not possible regarding the conservatorship? As I'm sure many have, I just read Charlie Harrison's new article on SA. I would love to believe much of what he proposes, but I'm not sure that what he's saying is even legally possible. In addition, the theory of treasury returning money to the gse's seems way far fetched. http://seekingalpha.com/article/4037336-fannie-mae-valuing-preferred-versus-common-trump-privatization-settlement?v=1484681981&commenter=1&comments=show Sorry to rehash. I honestly never paid any attention to the topic of damages or Treasury returning money as I thought it was just plain ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I thought we had been through this question of whether all current shareholders benefit from damages awarded about two hundred pages ago on this thread (probably in the context of whether current shareholders have standing) :) Chris - one question though - the clause he cites from the SPSA seems an interesting find. However, even if this implies what he thinks it does, it's hard to see for even the Trump Treasury to just reverse everything, including warrants, and walk away from $b of value. Your take on this clause? Thank you. C. Can anyone comment on the situation regarding statue of limitations with respect to what is and is not possible regarding the conservatorship? As I'm sure many have, I just read Charlie Harrison's new article on SA. I would love to believe much of what he proposes, but I'm not sure that what he's saying is even legally possible. In addition, the theory of treasury returning money to the gse's seems way far fetched. http://seekingalpha.com/article/4037336-fannie-mae-valuing-preferred-versus-common-trump-privatization-settlement?v=1484681981&commenter=1&comments=show i dont see all plaintiffs settling for greenmail, a la icahn in the 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Investors Unite call starting now (11am EST): 877-876-9177; Conference ID: Investors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 FWIW from a short term perspective do you guys think a Mnunchin appointment/approval is baked in at these prices? Some preferred's are still trading at ~25% of par. Still a lot of upside in a scenario where they are redeemed at par. Also on more of a hokey note the Bollinger Bands on the chart are very tight implying a big move either up or down very soon. Not a coincidence with what is happening this week IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 On timeframe of potential release of documents by new Admin: First speaker (paraphrased): "internal process within DOJ where AG makes recommendation to President, usually takes a lot of time but not necessarily in this case as it would simply be a decision to not invoke executive privilege. I don't see any reason why they couldn't be released within a month of Trump taking office." Second speaker said he agreed with those comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 "The government can stop the NWS tomorrow without going to Congress. They do need to go to Congress to pass new legislation, but not to stop the NWS." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 wilbur ross confirmation hearing for commerce scty just ended. mostly a love fest, for today at least. (remember he was the one who brought up the GSEs unsolicited in the fox nov30 interview). no mention of GSEs today, to my knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_Hamilton Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 wilbur ross confirmation hearing for commerce scty just ended. mostly a love fest, for today at least. (remember he was the one who brought up the GSEs unsolicited in the fox nov30 interview). no mention of GSEs today, to my knowledge. No. It was Steven Mnuchin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Tomorrow should be fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Tomorrow should be fun will be interesting to see if most of the incoming for mnuchin will be that he is a foreclosure vulture. this would serve to deflect the hedge fund GSE crony narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 good luck everyone, especially to those who have been cheated out of justice for many years. i do not expect any explicit positive commentary related to the GSEs. rather, i'm hoping for a solid performance that increases the odds of his confirmation while at the same time no GSE bashing (which could be aimed at solidifying the republican congressional votes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 good luck everyone, especially to those who have been cheated out of justice for many years. i do not expect any explicit positive commentary related to the GSEs. rather, i'm hoping for a solid performance that increases the odds of his confirmation while at the same time no GSE bashing (which could be aimed at solidifying the republican congressional votes). Best of luck to you and everyone. I think he's going to get pushed hard on what he meant by his comments, views on government guarantee and how it all relates to benefiting Paulson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Anyone aware of a live feed of the hearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr33ngi4nt Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Anyone aware of a live feed of the hearing? https://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing-to-consider-the-anticipated-nomination-of-steven-terner-mnuchin-to-be-secretary-of-the-treasury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodon Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Also: http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2017/01/19/live-blog-and-video-of-steven-mnuchins-treasury-secretary-confirmation-hearing/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 hensarling is the second introducing speaker for mnuchin. that's a nice surprise! @gr i am watching on cspan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 What just happened LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 What just happened LOL Inefficient government bickering... "valium" LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now