BeerBBQ Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Doesn't SIFI designation imply onerous bank like capital standards? GSEs are currently operating under no capital standards. an important part of any administrative solution would be to figure out what standard should be and more importantly how applied. for this you should read howard on mortgage finance to see lay of land. Agree. I was referring to the MBA article. Seems like SIFI designation is code for bank like requirements i.e. A non starter in terms of recapitalization and common equity having value.
undervalued Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 is there a chance that Mnuchin will not get confirmed? Hatch is saying they can only delay. “I can’t understand why senators, who know we’re going to have these two people go through, can’t support the committee,” said Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317076-dems-boycott-confirmation-votes-for-trump-nominees Is market saying there is a chance Mnuchin won't get picked?
Guest cherzeca Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 @wayne "If the case is remanded, the District Court would look at the adm record Tsy filed, the substitute for an admin record that FHFA filed, and would look at adding documents from discovery to the records submitted by Tsy/FHFA." district court wouldnt look at adding any other docs. not judges job. he would read appeals court order and implement it. likely upon remand, appeals ct would instruct district judge to order that treasury and fhfa supply full and complete administrative records. then would wait for them to do it, and for Ps to object to them as incomplete, if they do not include docs that they will have access to through fairholme discovery
investorG Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Is market saying there is a chance Mnuchin won't get picked? yes sir, the market is pricing in some risk of him failing.
hardincap Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Reports/Funds2016Annual.pdf havent sold a single share and allowed f&f to be ~40% of his fairx portfolio (as of today)
Guest cherzeca Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Reports/Funds2016Annual.pdf notice how bruce elides by the notion of rolling back NWS. he says let GSEs retain capital. so if you let them retain capital, how do you do that, do you leave NWS intact, but you just dont declare the dividend? not bloody likely. i dont know why he states his position more clearly.
hardincap Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Reports/Funds2016Annual.pdf notice how bruce elides by the notion of rolling back NWS. he says let GSEs retain capital. so if you let them retain capital, how do you do that, do you leave NWS intact, but you just dont declare the dividend? not bloody likely. i dont know why he states his position more clearly. saying unwind the NWS seems self-serving whereas "retain capital to protect taxpayers" sounds benevolent and distracts from the self serving aspect of it
onyx1 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 According to this, another vote is scheduled for tomorrow. https://twitter.com/Zachary/status/826539055852748800
waynepolsonAtoZ Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Here is a Q&A about the possible consequences of lying to Congress. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/what-happens-if-you-lie-to-congress.html Note that I think he'll get away with it. Why he didn't just say "everyone is doing it" is a bit beyond me. The Rs are going to get him through one way or another. And I do like what he said early on about the GSEs, though he seems to have backpedaled a little bit.
Guest cherzeca Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Here is a Q&A about the possible consequences of lying to Congress. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/what-happens-if-you-lie-to-congress.html Note that I think he'll get away with it. Why he didn't just say "everyone is doing it" is a bit beyond me. The Rs are going to get him through one way or another. And I do like what he said early on about the GSEs, though he seems to have backpedaled a little bit. we do not need a Q/A about lying to congress because mnuchin did not lie to congress. this is absurd.
doc75 Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 we do not need a Q/A about lying to congress because mnuchin did not lie to congress. this is absurd. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I'm likely just ignorant. I've only been able to find reports describing Mnuchin's purported lies to congress. In particular, it seems he was asked directly about robo-signing, something he said company did not do. But, from what I've read, this is demonstrably false. There were also some things he said that appeared to stretch the truth, with regards to the timing of his position at OneWest. Could someone provide me with counterpoint (links or anything). I'm just finding lots of hits for rehashes of the original story from the Ohio Dispatch. Thanks
Guest cherzeca Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 one west inherited a frigging mess from indymac, and had alot of cleanup to do...at the behest of fdic, which wanted its loss sharing exposure to be mitigated as well. i have found one consent order re onewest backdating. which is a settlement, not a finding of guilt. but every holder of hundreds of thousands of defaulted loans had logistical issues, and so let's stipulate that some onewest loans were backdated. this was a fire drill. mnuchin said backdating wasnt onewest's standard practice. he wasnt making a guarantee that it never happened, since to know behavior of all loan officers would be impossible. remember, onewest did most of its business in california, and california made alot of headlines making accusations against onewest re foreclosures, but it dropped its investigation, which didnt make many headlines. but what is the relevance of this? he didnt cheat on his taxes like daschele. he bought and saved a messed up mortgage banker and saved fdic alot of money, making himself and his partners alot of money as well. drives progressives nuts it seems.
rros Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 shits and giggles here, but you ever notice we're the only ones talking about this shit here!!!!!!!!!!!!!! aside from couple boards, i mean to say, zip and friking pip, nada, zero, zilch, squat, bubkus, stugatz, a minga, dzere, sweet phoque (seal landed who?nice) all, nothing on MSM is what i'm trying to say.......some perspective, oh say cnn would looooooooooove to report right about yesterday about how some trump supporters could reap massive rewards via Mr. Mnuchin. ya it's all over net twitter, actually that reinforces the point even more so. i mean, you have one of the most substantive legal developments in the case this week involving the writ no less, not least of which, the loss comes with a judge overturning exec priv on 99.9% of some 11,000 docs. does that register as a scandal during obama's legacy cnn? hey obama, as an aside you're an ahole. ( we know msm would love to know about the missing 8 documents that the big bad trump organization was claiming executive privilege on though) yet cnn/fox/abc/cnbc haven't touched the potentially multi billion dollar bias. well, we all know why. because badouchebag obama has a, lol, sacrosanct legacy and the little snowball they didn't want to touch out of "journalistic integrity" has developed into a potential avalanche of a monster payout for some hf's (ackman stands to make 2billion per ten bucks common, god knows the rest after converting). except that my spin on money as will cnn's be, obfuscates the small fact that obama wanted to screw homeowners out of the 30yr mortgage, plain and simple, but cnn isn't that friking dumb to know that if they begin with the end of the story, they'll have to run it back to the beginning, which will lead the public by the nose, pinched or not because it took hedge funds suing obama to figure it out, that the whole thing was a lie. so when exactly are they going to break the story? whenever it may be, i'm sure it will have the blazing headline, breaking news, "cnn has just discovered a decade old lawsuit involving potentially billions of dollars to the victors, back after this......,(7 to 1 first ad is pharma 25-1 pharma will have an ad during break) yet despite that, let's spin Mr.Mnuchin as being rainmaker here, ya know, in keeping with our "journalistic integrity" is trump enriching himself during the presidency, forget clinton's 2billion, like predicting dominoes, i'm just curious as to how it will unfold from that perspective. not one talking head has ever mentioned this debacle, wow, crack reporting there msm. i'm certain they'll never address why they never brought it up before either look folks i'm not saying i wrote the pelican's brief here or anything, but if this shit goes down as predicted and i disappear, it's because i went to europe for a month, so relax... i'll be back, trust me, either as first person to call myself a loser, or not....... Pauly, excuse my lack of english mastery..But this is what I picked up from your new(er) diatribe: "hey obama, as an aside you're an ahole."... With which I fully agree. Again.
Sunrider Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 shits and giggles here, but you ever notice we're the only ones talking about this shit here!!!!!!!!!!!!!! aside from couple boards, i mean to say, zip and friking pip, nada, zero, zilch, squat, bubkus, stugatz, a minga, dzere, sweet phoque (seal landed who?nice) all, nothing on MSM is what i'm trying to say.......some perspective, oh say cnn would looooooooooove to report right about yesterday about how some trump supporters could reap massive rewards via Mr. Mnuchin. ya it's all over net twitter, actually that reinforces the point even more so. i mean, you have one of the most substantive legal developments in the case this week involving the writ no less, not least of which, the loss comes with a judge overturning exec priv on 99.9% of some 11,000 docs. does that register as a scandal during obama's legacy cnn? hey obama, as an aside you're an ahole. ( we know msm would love to know about the missing 8 documents that the big bad trump organization was claiming executive privilege on though) yet cnn/fox/abc/cnbc haven't touched the potentially multi billion dollar bias. well, we all know why. because badouchebag obama has a, lol, sacrosanct legacy and the little snowball they didn't want to touch out of "journalistic integrity" has developed into a potential avalanche of a monster payout for some hf's (ackman stands to make 2billion per ten bucks common, god knows the rest after converting). except that my spin on money as will cnn's be, obfuscates the small fact that obama wanted to screw homeowners out of the 30yr mortgage, plain and simple, but cnn isn't that friking dumb to know that if they begin with the end of the story, they'll have to run it back to the beginning, which will lead the public by the nose, pinched or not because it took hedge funds suing obama to figure it out, that the whole thing was a lie. so when exactly are they going to break the story? whenever it may be, i'm sure it will have the blazing headline, breaking news, "cnn has just discovered a decade old lawsuit involving potentially billions of dollars to the victors, back after this......,(7 to 1 first ad is pharma 25-1 pharma will have an ad during break) yet despite that, let's spin Mr.Mnuchin as being rainmaker here, ya know, in keeping with our "journalistic integrity" is trump enriching himself during the presidency, forget clinton's 2billion, like predicting dominoes, i'm just curious as to how it will unfold from that perspective. not one talking head has ever mentioned this debacle, wow, crack reporting there msm. i'm certain they'll never address why they never brought it up before either look folks i'm not saying i wrote the pelican's brief here or anything, but if this shit goes down as predicted and i disappear, it's because i went to europe for a month, so relax... i'll be back, trust me, either as first person to call myself a loser, or not....... Pauly, excuse my lack of english mastery..But this is what I picked up from your new(er) diatribe: "hey obama, as an aside you're an ahole."... With which I fully agree. Again. ... and with due respect, precisely because it takes so much time to read stream-of-consciousness ramblings and synthesise messages from them, I've started to skip straight over Pauly's posts. That's not to say that I'm not interested in what you have to say - as I am sure are many others - but you may get your points across better if you put them more succinctly and in complete sentences. ;) Thank you. C
doc75 Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 but what is the relevance of this? he didnt cheat on his taxes like daschele. he bought and saved a messed up mortgage banker and saved fdic alot of money, making himself and his partners alot of money as well. drives progressives nuts it seems. I'm "progressive", whatever that means. It doesn't drive me nuts if he was a smart guy who made money cleaning up a big mess. It does bother me if he is lying directly to the committee. Relevance? Perhaps none. I thought I had read that perjury in the confirmation process was serious business. I was asking particularly about robo-signing, where it seems he is either lying or there is some nuance I'm missing. See for example: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/remember-robo-signing-at-banks-neither-does-mnuchin or https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/mnuchin-again-denies-robo-signing-despite-yet-more-evidence-he-is-lying/
Guest cherzeca Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 @doc75 last post on this from me. this is a stupid distraction. nocera article is a smear job. cites a columbus dispatch article. not evidence, just an allegation by a journalist that was never followed up. cites consent decree. nocera doesn't mention that this is not an admission of guilt, just a settlement of an allegation by regulator. not evidence of "lying" about robo-signing cause consent decree isnt evidence of robo-signing. nocera goes on to say california investigated. doesnt say that california dropped its investigation.
Flynnstone5 Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 but what is the relevance of this? he didnt cheat on his taxes like daschele. he bought and saved a messed up mortgage banker and saved fdic alot of money, making himself and his partners alot of money as well. drives progressives nuts it seems. I'm "progressive", whatever that means. It doesn't drive me nuts if he was a smart guy who made money cleaning up a big mess. It does bother me if he is lying directly to the committee. Relevance? Perhaps none. I thought I had read that perjury in the confirmation process was serious business. I was asking particularly about robo-signing, where it seems he is either lying or there is some nuance I'm missing. See for example: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/remember-robo-signing-at-banks-neither-does-mnuchin or https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/mnuchin-again-denies-robo-signing-despite-yet-more-evidence-he-is-lying/ Progressive means socialism, which is why they can't tell you the difference between the two. As far as robo-signing, I think cherzeca's post covered it. The left is simply grasping at anything they can to stop cabinet appointments. I don't think it takes any deep thought on the board to see the obstruction for anything other than what it is. They'll do the same with the Supreme Court nominee, which is why they were protesting at the court before anyone even knew how to pronounce the guy's name.
Seahug Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Why does berkowitz say GSE portfolio values increase as interest rates increase? 'As interest rates rise, Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolios become even more valuable – and we anticipate that Q4 2016 results will reflect this positive impact. " I would have thought the opposite for the held portfolio.
rros Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Why does berkowitz say GSE portfolio values increase as interest rates increase? 'As interest rates rise, Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolios become even more valuable – and we anticipate that Q4 2016 results will reflect this positive impact. " I would have thought the opposite for the held portfolio. Because of hedges?
Seahug Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/jaffee/papers/FFJuly31.pdf see if u guys can figure this out... So... what i gather from a 5 min scan of this 2002 paper is interest rates partially but not completely hedged, 100% hedging would cost too much. maybe this is it, p22-23, text + table 6 FNMA inc guarantee fee stream in its income. If i declines, more preterminations, hence lower fees. So they model +1 and -1% interest rate change. In both cases there's some loss but significantly more when interest rates decline by 1%.
Luke 532 Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Hatch is a stud. Two days of Democrat boycotting and Hatch goes ahead with the vote. On to the Senate floor!
Flynnstone5 Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Hatch is a stud. Two days of Democrat boycotting and Hatch goes ahead with the vote. On to the Senate floor! +1 Steam roll them
Luke 532 Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Hatch is a stud. Two days of Democrat boycotting and Hatch goes ahead with the vote. On to the Senate floor! Senate Finance Committee votes to suspend rules requiring Democrats to be present for votes on Mnuchin and Price, then confirm nominations.
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