Jump to content

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


twacowfca

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

This is excellent... AAMA Adopts Resolution to Promote Homeownership

http://ourmayors.org/news/aama-adopts-resolution-to-promote-homeownership/

 

Excerpts (emphasis mine):

"WHEREAS, the conservatorship and the third amendment hinder the GSEs from rebuilding any capital and from providing the liquidity and access to the secondary mortgage market that they have historically offered; and"

 

"NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, the Corporation calls on the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Obama Administration to take the necessary actions to release Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from conservatorship and allow them to rebuild their capital reserves;"

 

"BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, Vice President of the United States, members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate, and other federal and state government officials as appropriate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO there's no way there's gonna be a political resolution before elections. IMHO government will also try to push any lawsuit progress out until after elections. How much they can succeed is a question to a lawyer (merkhet?).

 

Just saying that don't expect a resolution before 2017 (or late 2016).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO there's no way there's gonna be a political resolution before elections. IMHO government will also try to push any lawsuit progress out until after elections. How much they can succeed is a question to a lawyer (merkhet?).

 

Just saying that don't expect a resolution before 2017 (or late 2016).

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we're released tomorrow (remember, we don't need Congress to be released) or this drags on all the way to the Supreme Court.  It's best to assume the longest time frame but I don't expect the longest time frame.  I still believe a release/recap/settlement is the most likely (perhaps sometime after the budget deal is signed and/or Sweeney denies motion to dismiss on jurisdiction).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cherzeca

there are three cases govt is looking most acutely at, fairholme, perry and hindes/jacobs.  they all should have material developments by end of summer 2016.  i think it is entirely rational for govt to go into wait and see mode until then.  meanwhile, GSEs are a nice ATM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO there's no way there's gonna be a political resolution before elections. IMHO government will also try to push any lawsuit progress out until after elections. How much they can succeed is a question to a lawyer (merkhet?).

 

Just saying that don't expect a resolution before 2017 (or late 2016).

 

Sure, ask the guy who has been consistently wrong on the timing. :P

 

I mean, it's possible for them to continue to drag things out with delays, but I get the feeling that, in the Court of Federal Claims, Judge Sweeney is getting impatient. Moreover, I think that appeals are much harder to delay than trial courts, so the Perry appeal should be on time.

 

I haven't much more specificity than that. I think the most recent legal filing asking for Sweeney to review documents in camera is going to put some pressure on the Administration. in camera basically means that the judge will make the determination as to whether the documents deserve privilege or not. My guess is that if Sweeney allows it, then Fariholme will ask her to review the most sensitive documents first, so that they have leverage against the Administration in an election year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cherzeca

i see two leverage points in the motion to compel. 

 

first is the FHFA cant have it both ways argument, not govt for jurisdiction, govt for privilege,  it is FHFA's burden to carry on privilege and fact that Plaintiffs have same contradiction (if FHFA govt for jurisdiction, then govt privilege applies) shouldn't prevent govt from having to meet its burden.  second, the in camera inspection is hard to resist by govt since if there are some very relevant (and sensitive) docs which Plaintiffs can glean from timing, whose on email, prior references etc, and ask sweeney to look at these first, this relevance may carry the day over even a well-asserted privilege claim.

 

what i cant tell is whether the govt really cares about losing privilege fight.  all docs discovered notwithstanding claim of privilege will be subject to sweeney's confidentiality order, so govt has no risk from a public disclosure/embarrassment view.  of course, there is a risk from a merits view, but after having lost on liability and won on damages in starr (albeit subject to appeal), govt may be willing to take that risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO there's no way there's gonna be a political resolution before elections. IMHO government will also try to push any lawsuit progress out until after elections. How much they can succeed is a question to a lawyer (merkhet?).

 

Just saying that don't expect a resolution before 2017 (or late 2016).

 

Jurgis, I think youre getting antsy on a final outcome.... I just dont think that theres a good answer to that. The govt. has been stalling ever since fairholme has first put out the piece. And honestly the narrative of the govt hasnt changed at all since....delay, try something else, delay, try something else, delay.....so on.

 

Fundamentally, I dont think that any of the governemtns arguments have changed....the only thing now is that there has been some discovery and we get to see how (pardon my french) full of shit the gov't is.

 

 

Judge Sweeney said a long time ago that the shareholders will get their day in court. Before discover whent along their MO was executive privilege or some combination of that.

 

Now they are destroying documents? Lawyers at the DOJ have said privately that "the NWS will be seen as a profit grab." They have privately contradicted the "death spiral" narrative. This is a DOJ team that isnt in service to the people of America...this is corrupt government workers who want to cover up their own motives for breaking promises to American citizens at the expense of other American Citizens.

 

The DOJ lawyers are playing games with Sweeneys orders to release documents. In some cases they ignore them. The very namesake of the department they work for isnt serving Justice to the truth. 

 

Its a god damn travesty, the likes of watergate and the My Lai Massacre, that these documents are being released for public review.....And everyone knows it. And no one is willing to step up to the plate and bite the bullet because were all so cozy with the status quo.

 

 

Obama(nor any Congressman) cant step up to the plate and restore them because that imply that they knows something. Can you say impeachment....remember the Monica affair wasn't about getting a bj(thats not illegal)...... Hillary or Bernie or Trump cant touch it cuz that would kill their chances of an election.

 

 

And look who they put up to get reform done....some two bit congressman from TN who spends more time on his computer buying and trading stocks than the rest of the finance committee combined.

 

 

Someone got murdered and were all accomplices so no one is going to indict anyone else. And better to let the shareholders take the fall for the murder cuz no one likes those hedge fund guys....you know putting in the sweat equity. And what an easy narrative to sell to the public..... No one likes to see the other guy work harder for more $$, just ask all the Lebron haters. 

 

 

And dont get me started on the reporters...some reporter digs around enough there might be a nomination for the pulitzer in this.

 

 

No one wants to touch this because no one wants to take the fall. Its the ultimate game of catch the turd in Washington right now................so we delay.

 

 

And i get it...im blaming everyone but everything ive said is not new news....Bethany has said it all before, all be it in a better tone. God Bless her. Shes doing Gods work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

August 21, 2015: http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0233.pdf

"...defendant, the United States, respectfully requests that Jennifer O’Connor, James Walsh, and Allison Murphy be permitted access to information protected by the Protective Order. All of the applicants are attorneys representing the United States within the meaning of Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order, and work in the Office of the White House Counsel."

 

December 8, 2015: http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0274.pdf

"These three attorneys will replace Jennifer O’Connor and Allison Murphy, who were previously granted access but have left the office."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that Schwind, one of the govt's primary attorneys, recently left the DOJ.

 

Page 2, Footnote 4:

"In this regard, we also note that Gregg M. Schwind, one of the Government’s primary attorneys in this case, left the Department of Justice on July 10, 1015." http://www.valueplays.net/wp-content/uploads/Government-filing.pdf

 

See Exhibit 4 of the attached document.  It is a letter written by Schwind dated the very same day of his departure (July 10, 2015):

"Please be advised that the Government inadvertently provided plaintiffs several documents it considers privileged."

 

An awfully big coincidence that Schwind left the same day that it was disclosed to the courts that he had inadvertently provided documents to the Plaintiffs.

Schwind_12-7-2015.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that Schwind, one of the govt's primary attorneys, recently left the DOJ.

 

Page 2, Footnote 4:

"In this regard, we also note that Gregg M. Schwind, one of the Government’s primary attorneys in this case, left the Department of Justice on July 10, 1015." http://www.valueplays.net/wp-content/uploads/Government-filing.pdf

 

See Exhibit 4 of the attached document.  It is a letter written by Schwind dated the very same day of his departure (July 10, 2015):

"Please be advised that the Government inadvertently provided plaintiffs several documents it considers privileged."

 

An awfully big coincidence that Schwind left the same day that it was disclosed to the courts that he had inadvertently provided documents to the Plaintiffs.

 

 

 

The DOJ is like the 3 stooges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cherzeca

it does sorta look  like schwind was fired.  lost the privilege too i would think on those docs...though if i recall right from motion to compel, some of those docs were a never mind, you can have them on third thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Todd Sullivan's take on it: http://www.valueplays.net/2015/12/10/what-happened-to-greg-schwind/

 

Interesting that Schwind, one of the govt's primary attorneys, recently left the DOJ.

 

Page 2, Footnote 4:

"In this regard, we also note that Gregg M. Schwind, one of the Government’s primary attorneys in this case, left the Department of Justice on July 10, 1015." http://www.valueplays.net/wp-content/uploads/Government-filing.pdf

 

See Exhibit 4 of the attached document.  It is a letter written by Schwind dated the very same day of his departure (July 10, 2015):

"Please be advised that the Government inadvertently provided plaintiffs several documents it considers privileged."

 

An awfully big coincidence that Schwind left the same day that it was disclosed to the courts that he had inadvertently provided documents to the Plaintiffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The importance of this is what plaintiff's counsel states: some, even many claims of privilege are probably unwarranted.

 

It does not mean that highly sensitive documents ended up in the hands of plaintiff or that GS had ulterior purposes. GS could have been fired because of this. Or may have felt he and his team incompetence was there for all to see. Nobody knows.

 

In the end, what matters is that Judge Sweeney listens to plaintiff's counsel and grants last motion to uncover docs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: FCF

 

the liquidation of the fund has nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie. This is/was a high-yield bond fund. Their collapse is probably related to the energy market bust and only related to debt instruments that now nobody wants. If it spreads and intensifies this will be bad for the market. A credit market hit can, in turn, hit  equity markets. Traders are betting against funds invested in junk debt as third ave. so this can spread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: FCF

 

the liquidation of the fund has nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie. This is/was a high-yield bond fund. Their collapse is probably related to the energy market bust and only related to debt instruments that now nobody wants. If it spreads and intensifies this will be bad for the market. A credit market hit can, in turn, hit  equity markets. Traders are betting against funds invested in junk debt as third ave. so this can spread.

 

I didn't mean the preferreds caused the liquidation. I mean that the liquidation is likely to have pricing effects on the preferreds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...