Luke 532 Posted March 24, 2017 Posted March 24, 2017 5 minutes ago... @ReutersPolitics MORE: Tax reform bill isn't expected for 6-8 weeks, says House Ways and Means Committee GOP member Marchant. It's not taking until August for Mnuchin's work on tax reform to be done, it just might take that long for it to be passed by legislators. I doubt he'll just sit on his hands in the interim. Mnuchin February 23, 2017... Just depends how one interprets the following. I might be wrong as I could see it being either way. "...so I don't think you'll see something right away from us, whereas tax reform is a near-term issue. But this is definitely on the agenda." He did emphasize with his voice the "right away" part. Tax reform discussion at 5:45 of this video: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000595630 Quick: "Fair to say it's a little too early to tell on some of these details, that has to be worked out?" Mnuchin: "I would say it's a little too early to announce" (Mnuchin emphasized the word "announced"). Mnuchin: "See something in near future and committed to get it passed by August." The Treasury's work on it would be completed prior to it going through the process of getting passed. (my emphasis added, not Mnuchin's) The way he corrected her made it seem like they are pretty much done with the tax reform piece and it just has to jump through the hoops to get through Congress. Later on he says we haven't finalized the plan (dot i's and cross t's? Who knows...)
undervalued Posted March 24, 2017 Posted March 24, 2017 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fannie-freddie-investors-seek-rehearing-191135466.html Can someone spell out the probability of this going to shareholders way? For example, the probability of the lost case Perry vs Mnuchin was 3/8. Because there were 3 judges, assuming we want all 3 judges to favor shareholders or at least 2 judges. The chances of this happening was 3/8 and we lost. You can see this example http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/364986/probability-of-getting-exactly-2-heads-in-3-coins-tossed-with-order-not-importan. Now what is the chances of us winning in this rehearing? How many judges do we have this time?
Luke 532 Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 :) from Peter Chapman... Treasury filed an Advisory last night telling Judge Atlas that it no longer supports FHFA's position that the agency is constitutionally structured. A copy of the filing is attached...16-cv-03113-0046.pdf
no_free_lunch Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 :) from Peter Chapman... Treasury filed an Advisory last night telling Judge Atlas that it no longer supports FHFA's position that the agency is constitutionally structured. A copy of the filing is attached... Care to explain this as regards FNMA? What does this imply?
Luke 532 Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 :) from Peter Chapman... Treasury filed an Advisory last night telling Judge Atlas that it no longer supports FHFA's position that the agency is constitutionally structured. A copy of the filing is attached... Care to explain this as regards FNMA? What does this imply? I'd recommend a search of "FHFA" in this thread to learn their relationship with FNMA, Treasury, etc.
SnarkyPuppy Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 :) from Peter Chapman... Treasury filed an Advisory last night telling Judge Atlas that it no longer supports FHFA's position that the agency is constitutionally structured. A copy of the filing is attached... ... game set match??
muscleman Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-gop-plan-dead-trump-eyes-other-ways-to-reshape-health-care-1490434201 "With the collapse of Republicans’ health plan in the House Friday, the Trump administration is set to ramp up its efforts to weaken the Affordable Care Act". Stop funding ObamaCare through FnF seems like a first step to start with, what do you think?
investorG Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 :) from Peter Chapman... Treasury filed an Advisory last night telling Judge Atlas that it no longer supports FHFA's position that the agency is constitutionally structured. A copy of the filing is attached... ... game set match?? are you joking? the roadblock to a fair outcome is far more likely coming from congress (direct and indirect as it relates to other agenda items) than from fhfa. mnuchin and watt probably get along fine, even if mnuchin would rather to appoint someone else. if trump's approval rating was 60pct instead of 40pct, likely there would be more aggressive actions to change things. (this dynamic is also most likely why the HC bill failed, his popularity isn't high enough to allow him to get what the admin prefers).
investorG Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-gop-plan-dead-trump-eyes-other-ways-to-reshape-health-care-1490434201 "With the collapse of Republicans’ health plan in the House Friday, the Trump administration is set to ramp up its efforts to weaken the Affordable Care Act". Stop funding ObamaCare through FnF seems like a first step to start with, what do you think? we all can hope. unless we've misread mnuchin and the other cast of appointees, fear of political backlash is the only material reason to sweep this week. I personally hope they stand up for what's right but the market and tim howard suggest otherwise. it may be one of those things where what's best for the long term doesn't align with short term preferences.
SnarkyPuppy Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 :) from Peter Chapman... Treasury filed an Advisory last night telling Judge Atlas that it no longer supports FHFA's position that the agency is constitutionally structured. A copy of the filing is attached... ... game set match?? are you joking? the roadblock to a fair outcome is far more likely coming from congress (direct and indirect as it relates to other agenda items) than from fhfa. if I had to bet, mnuchin and watt get along fine. if trump's approval rating was 60pct instead of 40pct, likely there would be more aggressive actions to change things. (this dynamic is also most likely why the HC bill failed, his popularity isn't high enough to allow him to get what the admin prefers). I thought everyone was in agreement Congress wasn't required for Tsy to act in a way favorable to shareholders. This filing seems to be explicitly a very positive sign - why is this wrong?
investorG Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 :) from Peter Chapman... Treasury filed an Advisory last night telling Judge Atlas that it no longer supports FHFA's position that the agency is constitutionally structured. A copy of the filing is attached... ... game set match?? are you joking? the roadblock to a fair outcome is far more likely coming from congress (direct and indirect as it relates to other agenda items) than from fhfa. if I had to bet, mnuchin and watt get along fine. if trump's approval rating was 60pct instead of 40pct, likely there would be more aggressive actions to change things. (this dynamic is also most likely why the HC bill failed, his popularity isn't high enough to allow him to get what the admin prefers). I thought everyone was in agreement Congress wasn't required for Tsy to act in a way favorable to shareholders. This filing seems to be explicitly a very positive sign - why is this wrong? unless he gives up on the hard right wing republicans and goes for the democrats + moderate R's to pass his agenda on taxes, infrastructure, immigration, housing, and healthcare, then trump has a razor slim margin to pass legislation using only R votes in congress --- he has to be careful not to piss off some of them. also in this filing the trsy is STILL fighting the plaintiffs on the NWS. and it's likely that watt would go along with mnuchin if he wanted a 4th amendment and/or to stop the sweep. Watt is a traditional democrat, a group that has been pro-GSE in the past. but you may be right --- if I am wrong and watt is acting as a roadblock, mnuchin wants to bypass congress at some point and this case is won by the plaintiffs, then it's a major positive.
rros Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 :) from Peter Chapman... Treasury filed an Advisory last night telling Judge Atlas that it no longer supports FHFA's position that the agency is constitutionally structured. A copy of the filing is attached... ... game set match?? are you joking? the roadblock to a fair outcome is far more likely coming from congress (direct and indirect as it relates to other agenda items) than from fhfa. if I had to bet, mnuchin and watt get along fine. if trump's approval rating was 60pct instead of 40pct, likely there would be more aggressive actions to change things. (this dynamic is also most likely why the HC bill failed, his popularity isn't high enough to allow him to get what the admin prefers). I thought everyone was in agreement Congress wasn't required for Tsy to act in a way favorable to shareholders. This filing seems to be explicitly a very positive sign - why is this wrong? unless he gives up on the hard right wing republicans and goes for the democrats + moderate R's to pass his agenda on taxes, infrastructure, immigration, housing, and healthcare, then trump has a razor slim margin to pass legislation using only R votes in congress --- he has to be careful not to piss off some of them. also in this filing the trsy is STILL fighting the plaintiffs on the NWS. and it's likely that watt would go along with mnuchin if he wanted a 4th amendment and/or to stop the sweep. Watt is a traditional democrat, a group that has been pro-GSE in the past. but you may be right --- if I am wrong and watt is acting as a roadblock, mnuchin wants to bypass congress at some point and this case is won by the plaintiffs, then it's a major positive. Mnuchin may get along fine with Watt. But what if he doesn't in the coming months? The fact that Watt can't be removed at will may be annoying to some. A lot less leverage.
investorG Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 after reading Jerome corsi's reports and the executive summary of the link below, I believe it's far more likely than not that FnF profits have at least in part been used to plug holes in Obamacare, in particular the cost sharing reduction program -- which provides subsidies to insurance companies to help pay exchange participants' deductibles and copayments. the expected funding need for this program is $130bn over 10 years. waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20160707Joint_Congressional_Investigative_Report-2.pdf so what does trump do now that paul ryan's plan failed, does he expose this situation and vindicate corsi if it's indeed true? trump is on record now saying Obamacare will explode and the House Republicans have not only failed to fund this CSR program but they successfully sued the Obama admin to stop the payments (under a stayed appeal now I believe). In addition Congressman Chaffetz' short open records bill the other day seems like an attempt to shed light on the situation. any thoughts?
waynepolsonAtoZ Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 "but you may be right --- if I am wrong and watt is acting as a roadblock, " Watt's ok, he just isn't going to take the lead, leaving that role to Tsy. Mnuchin and the rest of the GS guys are the obstacles. And, I seriously doubt that Mnuchin is all that much better than Hank Paulson, Geithner, and Lew. Better, definitely, but still not super great.
rros Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 "but you may be right --- if I am wrong and watt is acting as a roadblock, " Watt's ok, he just isn't going to take the lead, leaving that role to Tsy. Mnuchin and the rest of the GS guys are the obstacles. And, I seriously doubt that Mnuchin is all that much better than Hank Paulson, Geithner, and Lew. Better, definitely, but still not super great. This view is strange given Mnuchin's public stance. What is exactly the obstacle? Or is it that government is impersonal, thus anybody landing in the WH suddenly becomes the WH? So if you and I become President and Vice we will suddenly embrace and love nationalization? How does GS's boys benefit from the statu quo? Unlike Paulson, who publicly stated FF having a broken business model, Mnuchin seems to think the enterprises performed just fine going into the recession. With a view of simply restructuring and re-regulating them. That was not HP's view. Neither Geithner's. Nor Lew's. Is there something deeply disturbing at the Treasury?
Mephistopheles Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 "but you may be right --- if I am wrong and watt is acting as a roadblock, " Watt's ok, he just isn't going to take the lead, leaving that role to Tsy. Mnuchin and the rest of the GS guys are the obstacles. And, I seriously doubt that Mnuchin is all that much better than Hank Paulson, Geithner, and Lew. Better, definitely, but still not super great. Geithner created the NWS, Lew continued with it. They both wanted exactly the opposite of recap, while recap is exactly what Mnuchin said he wants on mutliple occasions. I think Mnuchin is the opposite of Geithner and Lew.
investorG Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 "but you may be right --- if I am wrong and watt is acting as a roadblock, " Watt's ok, he just isn't going to take the lead, leaving that role to Tsy. Mnuchin and the rest of the GS guys are the obstacles. And, I seriously doubt that Mnuchin is all that much better than Hank Paulson, Geithner, and Lew. Better, definitely, but still not super great. if your goal is a full recap / release / pre-2007 then yes he will disappoint. if you're looking for the rule of law, and a housing system that includes reformed GSEs with some other competition, he might just be your man. time will tell.
Luke 532 Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 "but you may be right --- if I am wrong and watt is acting as a roadblock, " Watt's ok, he just isn't going to take the lead, leaving that role to Tsy. Mnuchin and the rest of the GS guys are the obstacles. And, I seriously doubt that Mnuchin is all that much better than Hank Paulson, Geithner, and Lew. Better, definitely, but still not super great. Geithner created the NWS, Lew continued with it. They both wanted exactly the opposite of recap, while recap is exactly what Mnuchin said he wants on mutliple occasions. I think Mnuchin is the opposite of Geithner and Lew. +1
Sunrider Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 My thoughts on this are that a dollar is a dollar - what the discussion below refers to is how the media may / may not do mental accounting. A second question would be how their mental account helps or does not help the GSE Investors' cause. C. after reading Jerome corsi's reports and the executive summary of the link below, I believe it's far more likely than not that FnF profits have at least in part been used to plug holes in Obamacare, in particular the cost sharing reduction program -- which provides subsidies to insurance companies to help pay exchange participants' deductibles and copayments. the expected funding need for this program is $130bn over 10 years. waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20160707Joint_Congressional_Investigative_Report-2.pdf so what does trump do now that paul ryan's plan failed, does he expose this situation and vindicate corsi if it's indeed true? trump is on record now saying Obamacare will explode and the House Republicans have not only failed to fund this CSR program but they successfully sued the Obama admin to stop the payments (under a stayed appeal now I believe). In addition Congressman Chaffetz' short open records bill the other day seems like an attempt to shed light on the situation. any thoughts?
muscleman Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 also in this filing the trsy is STILL fighting the plaintiffs on the NWS. Where did you see that in this filing? All this filing says is that it dropped support for FHFA. BTW, could this imply that Mnuchin and Watt don't get along? Otherwise FHFA could have just filed that they don't think they are constitutional either. What I observed is that this country seems more divided after the election and all Democrats would oppose ANYTHING the Republican says, without any rational thinking.
muscleman Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 No sex discrimination but so far the only two friendly judges for plaintiffs are female (Brown and Sweeney). What's up with the guys? ::)
investorG Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 also in this filing the trsy is STILL fighting the plaintiffs on the NWS. Where did you see that in this filing? All this filing says is that it dropped support for FHFA. BTW, could this imply that Mnuchin and Watt don't get along? Otherwise FHFA could have just filed that they don't think they are constitutional either. What I observed is that this country seems more divided after the election and all Democrats would oppose ANYTHING the Republican says, without any rational thinking. they only asked to remove 1 footnote which means the rest of their 30page brief stands? it appears tax reform will take the rest of this year. add in immigration, healthcare, and infrastructure, there's little-no room on the agenda for housing reform probably this and next year. so we're likely at the mercy of administrative/fhfa actions and the courts, or a long winter imo.
investorG Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 My thoughts on this are that a dollar is a dollar - what the discussion below refers to is how the media may / may not do mental accounting. A second question would be how their mental account helps or does not help the GSE Investors' cause. C. after reading Jerome corsi's reports and the executive summary of the link below, I believe it's far more likely than not that FnF profits have at least in part been used to plug holes in Obamacare, in particular the cost sharing reduction program -- which provides subsidies to insurance companies to help pay exchange participants' deductibles and copayments. the expected funding need for this program is $130bn over 10 years. waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20160707Joint_Congressional_Investigative_Report-2.pdf so what does trump do now that paul ryan's plan failed, does he expose this situation and vindicate corsi if it's indeed true? trump is on record now saying Obamacare will explode and the House Republicans have not only failed to fund this CSR program but they successfully sued the Obama admin to stop the payments (under a stayed appeal now I believe). In addition Congressman Chaffetz' short open records bill the other day seems like an attempt to shed light on the situation. any thoughts? not sure a dollar is a dollar. as far as I can tell there's the standard monies appropriated by congress and then some other slush funds which are far smaller than the other category and likely the source of the subsidy payments.
Sunrider Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 My thoughts on this are that a dollar is a dollar - what the discussion below refers to is how the media may / may not do mental accounting. A second question would be how their mental account helps or does not help the GSE Investors' cause. C. after reading Jerome corsi's reports and the executive summary of the link below, I believe it's far more likely than not that FnF profits have at least in part been used to plug holes in Obamacare, in particular the cost sharing reduction program -- which provides subsidies to insurance companies to help pay exchange participants' deductibles and copayments. the expected funding need for this program is $130bn over 10 years. waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20160707Joint_Congressional_Investigative_Report-2.pdf so what does trump do now that paul ryan's plan failed, does he expose this situation and vindicate corsi if it's indeed true? trump is on record now saying Obamacare will explode and the House Republicans have not only failed to fund this CSR program but they successfully sued the Obama admin to stop the payments (under a stayed appeal now I believe). In addition Congressman Chaffetz' short open records bill the other day seems like an attempt to shed light on the situation. any thoughts? not sure a dollar is a dollar. as far as I can tell there's the standard monies appropriated by congress and then some other slush funds which are far smaller than the other category and likely the source of the subsidy payments. I suppose so but do you happen to know how much of Obamacare is funded by this slush fund? I don't and it simply seems odd - if it was material, then surely Trump could just turn of that discretionary tab and disable Obamacare that way :). In other words, for me, unless someone can show me that a very material part of Ocare is funded by money not appropriated by law but from some sort of kitty, then I don't buy ... let's not forget, this argument was put into the public domain by the "Elvis is an alien and not dead/national enquirer type crowd". ;-)
investorG Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 My thoughts on this are that a dollar is a dollar - what the discussion below refers to is how the media may / may not do mental accounting. A second question would be how their mental account helps or does not help the GSE Investors' cause. C. after reading Jerome corsi's reports and the executive summary of the link below, I believe it's far more likely than not that FnF profits have at least in part been used to plug holes in Obamacare, in particular the cost sharing reduction program -- which provides subsidies to insurance companies to help pay exchange participants' deductibles and copayments. the expected funding need for this program is $130bn over 10 years. waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20160707Joint_Congressional_Investigative_Report-2.pdf so what does trump do now that paul ryan's plan failed, does he expose this situation and vindicate corsi if it's indeed true? trump is on record now saying Obamacare will explode and the House Republicans have not only failed to fund this CSR program but they successfully sued the Obama admin to stop the payments (under a stayed appeal now I believe). In addition Congressman Chaffetz' short open records bill the other day seems like an attempt to shed light on the situation. any thoughts? not sure a dollar is a dollar. as far as I can tell there's the standard monies appropriated by congress and then some other slush funds which are far smaller than the other category and likely the source of the subsidy payments. I suppose so but do you happen to know how much of Obamacare is funded by this slush fund? I don't and it simply seems odd - if it was material, then surely Trump could just turn of that discretionary tab and disable Obamacare that way :). In other words, for me, unless someone can show me that a very material part of Ocare is funded by money not appropriated by law but from some sort of kitty, then I don't buy ... let's not forget, this argument was put into the public domain by the "Elvis is an alien and not dead/national enquirer type crowd". ;-) his article on mar13 I thought was compelling. then combine that with link in my original post, suggests to me at least it's more likely than not. anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
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