DocSnowball Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Mnuchin Committee on Financial Services hearing @2.01.00 onwards - all he agrees to is that there should be no implicit government guarantee if Fannie and Freddie are re privatized,rather an explicit guarantee. Comments on GSEs at 40.00 as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Mnuchin Committee on Financial Services hearing @2.01.00 onwards - all he agrees to is that there should be no implicit government guarantee if Fannie and Freddie are re privatized,rather an explicit guarantee. Comments on GSEs at 40.00 as well Seems to be consistent with MBA proposal. Henslaring sure seems delighted immediately after Mnuchin states this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Mnuchin Committee on Financial Services hearing @2.01.00 onwards - all he agrees to is that there should be no implicit government guarantee if Fannie and Freddie are re privatized,rather an explicit guarantee. Comments on GSEs at 40.00 as well Seems to be consistent with MBA proposal. Henslaring sure seems delighted immediately after Mnuchin states this. i think mba plan wants explicit on all mbs and small bankers want it explicit on GSE mbs. big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Mnuchin Committee on Financial Services hearing @2.01.00 onwards - all he agrees to is that there should be no implicit government guarantee if Fannie and Freddie are re privatized,rather an explicit guarantee. Comments on GSEs at 40.00 as well Seems to be consistent with MBA proposal. Henslaring sure seems delighted immediately after Mnuchin states this. i think mba plan wants explicit on all mbs and small bankers want it explicit on GSE mbs. big difference. Ah I see - that makes his push to FHA comments seem relevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Seems to be consistent with MBA proposal. Henslaring sure seems delighted immediately after Mnuchin states this. Hensarling hates the MBA proposal. MBA wants explicit guarantee on all MBS, Hensarling wants no guarantee on any of them. I think too much of the debate has centered around there being three types of guarantee (none, implicit, explicit) and the desires of the different sides to change the status quo (implicit). This is a false choice, though. There aren't three guarantee types, only two. Either there is a government guarantee or there isn't. There has not been in the past; this lack of guarantee is clearly stated in every Fannie and Freddie annual filing I have read. Nobody in Congress or Treasury can force the market to not assume there is an implicit guarantee. MBA's proposal is clearly bad for FnF shareholders. For a while I thought Hensarling's no-guarantee plan would be bad as well because it would eliminate a historical FnF advantage (lower borrowing rates), but now I think that Hensarling's plan is fine. It doesn't actually change anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Joe Light article this morning... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-28/new-documents-give-hope-to-fannie-shareholders-seeking-redress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Joe Light article this morning... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-28/new-documents-give-hope-to-fannie-shareholders-seeking-redress Still biased. But it is getting harder and harder for Bloomberg/Light and Carney to keep their old stance. The article though does reflect my prior point. Since documents show government's preoccupation about the large 10% dividend -even if only as part of a discussion- it somewhat supports their original argument. Weakened however due to their acknowledgement and awareness of the potential excess money above the 10% dividends that could be retained by FF making any wind-down difficult to impossible. So from the 3 goals/outcomes: a) stop the death-spiral, b) impede revival, c) maximize Treasury's investment, it is difficult to determine the main objective and what could be seen as the icing on the cake. c) appears to be just that, an added bonus. While b) seems to be essential and the primary motivator. Specially, in light of their knowledge. Then a) would only be the acceptable narrative for the populace and the courts. Thus, Stegman et al. can and will continue to make such claims (a) until the cows come home. The problem a) has is someone called Ugoletti. Whose claims directly and specifically contradict what Treasury and FHFA knew and seem to be trying to hide under an acceptable cover-up/narrative. Unless we find a court/Judge that understands the scheme this way, we may be out of luck. The larger picture, in my mind, is the conspicuous absence of any mention of HERA anywhere. It's absence in all discussions could actually be what truly indicates Treasury's disregard to the law and what Congress had decided in 2008 tilting the balance on our favor. Even if considering all motives, goals and outcomes the most important question still is: was a), b) or c) part of the law and what Congress had in mind? So... is there any judge out there that will be able to see what can't be seen because it isn't there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Berk Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 i just listened to the argument. that was awful. I can't see how we prevail in the 6th circuit. The panel seems to want to do what's simplest and easiest From Peter Chapman... A recording of the oral arguments presented to the Sixth Circuit today is now available at https://goo.gl/ZxmZxr at no charge. Another Judge that doesn't know left from right. Houston, we have an Iowa problem. Again! As awesome as Thompson was the Judge appears not to understand the issues well enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 i just listened to the argument. that was awful. I can't see how we prevail in the 6th circuit. The panel seems to want to do what's simplest and easiest From Peter Chapman... A recording of the oral arguments presented to the Sixth Circuit today is now available at https://goo.gl/ZxmZxr at no charge. Another Judge that doesn't know left from right. Houston, we have an Iowa problem. Again! As awesome as Thompson was the Judge appears not to understand the issues well enough. @steve 6th circuit argument was a joke. reminded me of moot court with that judge saying to thompson, dont point your finger. i invite you to read rop and bhatti, both very early stages but constitutional and not APA claims, and hindes/jacobs might go to oral arg soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynepolsonAtoZ Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 It was really bad. I'd like to see the tr. to figure out exactly who said what amongst the three judges. How about the 7th Circuit case, the Chris Roberts one? It would be a nice surprise if Posner was one of the judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 Not saying all these are related but they could be... Trump to decide on Obamacare payments this week. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kellyanne-conway-trump-will-decide-next-week-if-administration-will-make-obamacare-cost-sharing-payments/article/2630121 Mnuchin, Corker talk mid-May about decision in 75 days (would be August 1 or thereabouts). https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4676133/75-days-end-july-2017 Watt publicly speaking on August 1 in the evening. https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/Pages/Public-Engagements.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 Not saying all these are related but they could be... Trump to decide on Obamacare payments this week. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kellyanne-conway-trump-will-decide-next-week-if-administration-will-make-obamacare-cost-sharing-payments/article/2630121 Mnuchin, Corker talk mid-May about decision in 75 days (would be August 1 or thereabouts). https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4676133/75-days-end-july-2017 Watt publicly speaking on August 1 in the evening. https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/Pages/Public-Engagements.aspx I may be off. But right now I am more concerned with what may happen after the 1st bomb is dropped in N. Korea. Will it accelerate recap, will FF be nationalized or will this be meaningless? I am thinking of a market crash as in an instant 10% gap down and 20% down (pushed by ETF selling and bots to -30%) within weeks. And that this might force everyone's hands. If the Fed goes into Q easing or lowering yields again companies may lose plenty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Tim Howard's latest... https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2017/07/31/a-pattern-of-deception/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunrider Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Tim Howard's latest... https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2017/07/31/a-pattern-of-deception/ Given the Blackrock document - is there a case anywhere/has there been one/can there be one (i.e. not barred by some rubbish law somewhere) that challenges the entities being 'put' into conservatorship in the first place, given that the board was effectively bullied into this? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynepolsonAtoZ Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Washington Federal. http://gselinks.com/Archive/Court_Filings.html#washington_federal Steve Berman of Hagens Berman is the counsel My cousin, Yale Law, Rhodes Scholar, says he's very good, Berman used to work at the same firm, Preston Gates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunrider Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Washington Federal. http://gselinks.com/Archive/Court_Filings.html#washington_federal Steve Berman of Hagens Berman is the counsel My cousin, Yale Law, Rhodes Scholar, says he's very good, Berman used to work at the same firm, Preston Gates. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynepolsonAtoZ Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Freddie Mac http://www.freddiemac.com/investors/financials/pdf/2017er-2q17_release.pdf http://www.freddiemac.com/investors/financials/pdf/supplement_2q17.pdf Key highlights $ Millions Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Comprehensive Income (CI) of $2.0 billion, Net Income of $1.7 billion. CI stable quarter-over-quarter due to reduction in market-related earnings volatility. » Market spreads were relatively unchanged. » Implementation of hedge accounting offset most net losses arising from changes in interest rates. Higher adjusted guarantee fee income partly due to continued growth in total guarantee portfolio balances. Credit quality: improving in Single-family, very strong in Multifamily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 See attached... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Freddie Mac http://www.freddiemac.com/investors/financials/pdf/2017er-2q17_release.pdf http://www.freddiemac.com/investors/financials/pdf/supplement_2q17.pdf Key highlights $ Millions Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Comprehensive Income (CI) of $2.0 billion, Net Income of $1.7 billion. CI stable quarter-over-quarter due to reduction in market-related earnings volatility. » Market spreads were relatively unchanged. » Implementation of hedge accounting offset most net losses arising from changes in interest rates. Higher adjusted guarantee fee income partly due to continued growth in total guarantee portfolio balances. Credit quality: improving in Single-family, very strong in Multifamily. thanks. technically watt appears to have punted. but does have some material changes in the verbiage and charts relative to 1q, so some movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 See attached... Twitter comment from Light and response from Carney... Joe Light Verified account @joelight 16m16 minutes ago Freddie says it plans $2 billion September dividend but language around payment has changed significantly, possibly anticipating a change John Carney Verified account @carney 2m2 minutes ago Yep. Key phrase "if the conservator declares a senior preferred dividend equal to our dividend requirement." Big IF clause there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas79 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 See attached... I suppose this means that Watt has until September 29 to decide if he wants Freddie to actually pay the dividend. It does emphasize that Watt is the one who will make this decision, no mention of Treasury. My guess is that Watt will withhold at least part of the $2.0B NWS dividend, but that he will wait until mid to late September to do so. This is wishful thinking in a way; I see it as part of an administrative plan to make sure that Congress doesn't pull the rug out from under them with another Jumpstart-like rider. Then again, actually paying the full Q2 dividend and waiting until the end of December to withhold would support my idea further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 I wish the #fanniegate crowd would stfu and let this play out on its own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onyx1 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 10-Q then, and now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 See attached... I suppose this means that Watt has until September 29 to decide if he wants Freddie to actually pay the dividend. It does emphasize that Watt is the one who will make this decision, no mention of Treasury. My guess is that Watt will withhold at least part of the $2.0B NWS dividend, but that he will wait until mid to late September to do so. This is wishful thinking in a way; I see it as part of an administrative plan to make sure that Congress doesn't pull the rug out from under them with another Jumpstart-like rider. Then again, actually paying the full Q2 dividend and waiting until the end of December to withhold would support my idea further. Trying not to catch Congress by surprise seems to be the issue. On the other hand, what would be the point of delaying any restructuring now? It made sense back then when Obama's era was coming to an end and there was uncertainty as to who the new President/party in the WH would be. Corker, Warner or anybody trying to tie Treasury's/Trump's hands now and into 2018 with zero capital and a continued divided Congress is an aberration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Conservatorship Capital Framework (CCF). If I'm not mistaken, this hasn't been mentioned before... 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