doughishere Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Investors Unite seems to think we will get an answer from Jacobs/Hindes in the next two weeks. Do they say why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 http://seekingalpha.com/article/3911686-fhfa-conservator-provides-evidence-perry-appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Investors Unite seems to think we will get an answer from Jacobs/Hindes in the next two weeks. i saw this in an email from investors unite: "In the next two weeks, the judge in the case will either dismiss the suit, which could prompt an appeal by plaintiffs. Alternatively, the judge could let the case proceed to the Delaware State Supreme Court or simply issue a ruling." @merkhet frankly, i just dismissed it as idle or unfounded speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Investors Unite seems to think we will get an answer from Jacobs/Hindes in the next two weeks. Do they say why? Nope. They just think we will hear on the MTD/Certification in two weeks -- it's a little odd to me because of the fact that the certification reply from Justice Steele isn't even due until February 26, a week from now. http://investorsunite.org/government-offers-nixonian-rationale-for-dismissing-shareholder-rights-in-delaware-case/ In the next two weeks, the judge in the case will either dismiss the suit, which could prompt an appeal by plaintiffs. Alternatively, the judge could let the case proceed to the Delaware State Supreme Court or simply issue a ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 http://seekingalpha.com/article/3911686-fhfa-conservator-provides-evidence-perry-appeal There's not much more that needs to be said. Nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 It's amazing to me that there's even the whiff of independence when Watt indicates that FHFA wants to end the conservatorship and yet is unable to do so. http://harvardjol.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/HLL110_crop.pdf More to this point, from Peter Chapman on the Harvard piece above: "The fact that Treasury and FHFA amended the PSPA three times to account for changing circumstances shows the two agencies were working together to manage and regulate the GSEs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Someones been commenting On Carney's latest. ;) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Foreclosing on Investors’ Hopes http://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-foreclosing-on-investors-hopes-1455914265 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 From Peter Chapman... "The Clerk of the Court for the Federal Circuit made a notation (Doc. 45) on the docket sheet in Piszel v. U.S. yesterday that the case is scheduled for oral argument at 10:00 a.m. on Thurs., Apr. 7, 2016." So, another case with oral arguments scheduled in early/mid April. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 That "noisy chorus" is getting pretty loud. Numerous articles out the past few days. This one with Mayopoulos: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/36a4efd8-d72f-11e5-829b-8564e7528e54.html#axzz40jS3GEIO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Watt & Mayopolous' comments seem co-ordinated. Maybe that's just my optimism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Watt's comments make me want to get a little more exposure to this idea. He seems to be the first of "other side" to publicly agree that the current situation is unsustainable. There isn't a scenario where FnF are released from conservator ship but shareholders are not rewarded correct? I guess that would be the ultimate screw over, but the release of FnF and realization of value for shareholders goes hand in hand correct? If FnF are released does the 10% dividend to the gov go back into place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Does anyone have the text to the FT fannie article? I dont have a subscription. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Watt & Mayopolous' comments seem co-ordinated. Maybe that's just my optimism. i was thinking that too. let's face it, they talk to each other alot, and i imagine they are both frustrated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Why all of a sudden go against the Administration then? Why reverse course now? Is this an election year tactic for the dems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Does anyone have the text to the FT fannie article? I dont have a subscription. Thanks. Here are the important quotes: Fannie Mae’s chief executive and its regulator are sounding the alarm on a decline in the institution’s capital cushion, which is on course to vanish in 2018, when it would have to ask the US Treasury for emergency funds. So far investors who own Fannie Mae’s mortgage-backed securities have not been spooked, Mr Mayopoulos said, but he added: “We are a major source of liquidity to the mortgage markets and it would be better to avoid testing the market as to what the breaking point is well in advance of us getting to that point.” Mr Mayopoulos said a range of options for solving the capital problem were available, such as allowing Fannie Mae to retain earnings, changing the terms on what gets Treasury support via preferred stock purchases, and taking it out of conservatorship so it could be recapitalised in another way. Terry Haines, managing director at Evercore ISI, an investment research house, said Mr Watt’s speech “may hint at a frustration with administration inaction on housing finance reform”. Looks like CNBC has basically posted the FT article. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/20/fannie-mae-at-risk-of-needing-a-bailout.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Watt's comments make me want to get a little more exposure to this idea. He seems to be the first of "other side" to publicly agree that the current situation is unsustainable. There isn't a scenario where FnF are released from conservator ship but shareholders are not rewarded correct? I guess that would be the ultimate screw over, but the release of FnF and realization of value for shareholders goes hand in hand correct? If FnF are released does the 10% dividend to the gov go back into place? It depends on which shareholders you're talking about. I can see a world in which preferred shareholders are paid off at par, but the common shareholders are diluted very significantly because of the lack of capital. (Remember, you can either use the capital to pay off the Government preferred or you can use the capital to build capital. You can't use the same dollar for both.) Why all of a sudden go against the Administration then? Why reverse course now? Is this an election year tactic for the dems? Unclear about the motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Watt & Mayopolous' comments seem co-ordinated. Maybe that's just my optimism. i was thinking that too. let's face it, they talk to each other alot, and i imagine they are both frustrated And yet... Watt still has options available right now that he's not exercising. So the main thing that makes me curious is that Watt is so publicly voicing his displeasure with the situation despite being able to move unilaterally w/o Treasury's sign off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Rhetorical question, but If Watt isn't running the company the way he thinks it should then who is responsible for running the company and making the decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Todd Sullivan (small hedge fund manager) on Harvard report: http://www.valueplays.net/2016/02/22/harvard-hera-analysis-calls-for-judicial-review-in-gse-litigation/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eye4Valu Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Merkhet-You've expressed your concern over the procedural bars the government claims the plaintiffs can't overcome. What are your thoughts on the "conflict of interest" exception in the context of HERA? Would love to read DeMarco's depo with this exception in mind. Would be more fun than whistling in the dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Fairholme call today (Feb 23rd)... Dear Investor, This is a reminder that Bruce Berkowitz will host a one-hour conference call TOMORROW, February 23, 2016, at 11:00 AM EST. Please click here to view the full press release. Mr. Berkowitz will be providing commentary on investments while responding to questions submitted in advance by the public. Participants are encouraged to review recent commentary and topical postings, as well as the online streaming details, by visiting www.FairholmeFunds.com. To listen to the call online, click here. U.S. and Canada Toll-Free Dial-In: (888) 267-5949 UK Toll Free Dial-In: 0800 028 8438 UK Local Toll Dial-In: 0203 107 0289 International Toll Dial-In: +1 (864) 568-3268 Conference ID: 50083490 The conference line will open 10 minutes prior to start time. A transcript of the call will be edited for clarity and made available on the website after the call. Kind regards, Investor Relations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 To listen to the call online, click here. https://engage.vevent.com/index.jsp?eid=4711&seid=18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I highly doubt there will be anything substantial...we shal see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I highly doubt there will be anything substantial...we shal see. Neither do I. I love listening to these things because you can often pick up on non-verbal clues such as tone, body language (in videos), etc. For example, those that saw the Mel Watt broadcast last week may have very well walked away with a different impression than those that simply read the transcript. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Merkhet-You've expressed your concern over the procedural bars the government claims the plaintiffs can't overcome. What are your thoughts on the "conflict of interest" exception in the context of HERA? Would love to read DeMarco's depo with this exception in mind. Would be more fun than whistling in the dark. There are two procedural bars: (A) 4617(f) saying that courts are not allowed to review the exercise of conservator power, and (B) the conservator succeeded to the rights of shareholders The "conflict of interest" exception only deals w/ (B). Plaintiffs have to win (A) & (B). I think that FHFA has a conflict of interest because it's unlikely that they can stand up to Treasury, but you'd have to be able to prove it -- which is what the discovery in Fairholme v. United States is about. I am more worried about how the courts decide to deal w/ (A). 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