investorG Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 mnuchin's hearing is reported to not occur until after jan20 inauguration. i guess it was a good sign that some ethics form news came out today. trump mentioned in his press conference he would be busy the week of jan 23 with new initiatives / signings. all things equal, it would perhaps be helpful for the confirmation hearing if one of those early announcements was something like an intention to stop the NWS forward looking --- this could release some heat as it would suggest to those senators opposed to the GSEs that providing justice and kick starting housing are the administration's views rather than one person's (who happened to have a small portion of his $ in Paulson's fund). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undervalued Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 I still can't access the article but here it is.. http://www.wsj.com/articles/mnuchin-has-stake-in-fund-that-would-gain-from-fannie-mae-revival-1484169733 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevevri Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 mnuchin is an investor in paulson's fund (though just <1m) https://extapps2.oge.gov/201/Presiden.nsf/PAS+Index/B003D12FCD5F4C3F852580A5004FF6A4/$FILE/Mnuchin,%20Steven%20T.%20final278.pdf i would think mnuchin's interest in paulson's advantage should be either be transferred to another party or donated to charity Same content as the WSJ article basically (WSJ goes a little deeper) but he will divest. WSJ says "that he wouldn’t participate in any matter that has a “direct and predictable effect” on their (Fannie/Freddie) interests until he had divested or unless he received a written waiver." http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2017/01/mnuchin-to-divest-positions-in-citigroup-goldman-233474 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 mnuchin will divest paulson advantage interest w/in 90 days of confirmation: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Mnuchinletter01112017.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 mnuchin will divest paulson advantage interest w/in 90 days of confirmation: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Mnuchinletter01112017.pdf Maybe this will be done in 90 days then. Not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Anyone see the GSE discussion of FnF on Fox Business about an hour ago? I can't find the video yet and only saw the tail end. James Freeman of WSJ calling for FnF to be wound down and liquidated, protecting taxpayers, CBO estimates moving to pure private would only add small increase to mortgage rates, FnF caused the crisis, etc. He later made additional comments that he hopes at Mnuchin's confirmation hearing, senators will ask him directly if he finally plans to shut down these two behemoths. Bartiromo replies, well that's exactly what he said he was going to do. http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5279352704001/?#sp=show-clips I continue to see multiple stories now regarding Paulson and the FnF stake. Without a doubt he gets grilled on this ,which IMO is going to send the stock soaring or has the potential to destroy recent gains. I also saw that Paulson owns common shares, which I did not realize. I thought he was in prfd. So the million dollar question aside from a Perry decision in the immediate future is, how does he respond to these questions and what future plan does he provide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 i would think mnuchin's interest in paulson's advantage should be either be transferred to another party or donated to charity good and simple idea. charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Anyone see the GSE discussion of FnF on Fox Business about an hour ago? I can't find the video yet and only saw the tail end. James Freeman of WSJ calling for FnF to be wound down and liquidated, protecting taxpayers, CBO estimates moving to pure private would only add small increase to mortgage rates, FnF caused the crisis, etc. He later made additional comments that he hopes at Mnuchin's confirmation hearing, senators will ask him directly if he finally plans to shut down these two behemoths. Bartiromo replies, well that's exactly what he said he was going to do. http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5279352704001/?#sp=show-clips I continue to see multiple stories now regarding Paulson and the FnF stake. Without a doubt he gets grilled on this ,which IMO is going to send the stock soaring or has the potential to destroy recent gains. I also saw that Paulson owns common shares, which I did not realize. I thought he was in prfd. So the million dollar question aside from a Perry decision in the immediate future is, how does he respond to these questions and what future plan does he provide? With James Freeman being a senior editor not hard to figure out WSJ's slanted stance of FnF the last couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 i am surprised no equity sell-side analyst besides KBW has published on the GSEs. obviously i am biased but even if they were to simple outline the bull and bear cases, without making a firm recommendation, it could be very helpful to their customers, much more so than the regular stocks they eagerly write on where 10-50 analysts cover them and the marginal comments are not relevant. many analysts out there in the hedge funds are likely intrigued by a long investment in the FNMA, but often in such a risky situation they need 'cover' from a sell side analyst in order to present an idea to a portfolio manager / investment committee to avoid looking max foolish if the idea goes sour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Purely speculating- I think Carney's move to Breitbart could be a way for him to distance himself from WSJ/negative GSE views IF his writing on the GSE's was the result of orders from the top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnarkyPuppy Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 i am surprised no equity sell-side analyst besides KBW has published on the GSEs. obviously i am biased but even if they were to simple outline the bull and bear cases, without making a firm recommendation, it could be very helpful to their customers, much more so than the regular stocks they eagerly write on where 10-50 analysts cover them and the marginal comments are not relevant. many analysts out there in the hedge funds are likely intrigued by a long investment in the FNMA, but often in such a risky situation they need 'cover' from a sell side analyst in order to present an idea to a portfolio manager / investment committee to avoid looking max foolish if the idea goes sour. Too much career risk all around. Even bringing up the GSE investment usually incites laughter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 i am surprised no equity sell-side analyst besides KBW has published on the GSEs. obviously i am biased but even if they were to simple outline the bull and bear cases, without making a firm recommendation, it could be very helpful to their customers, much more so than the regular stocks they eagerly write on where 10-50 analysts cover them and the marginal comments are not relevant. many analysts out there in the hedge funds are likely intrigued by a long investment in the FNMA, but often in such a risky situation they need 'cover' from a sell side analyst in order to present an idea to a portfolio manager / investment committee to avoid looking max foolish if the idea goes sour. When researching AIG years ago one of the comments I read from an anonymous hedge fund manager was that he/she saw great value in the AIG shares, but didn’t want to buy them because “I was afraid that if I lost money in AIG again that my clients wouldn’t understand and would leave.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 i am surprised no equity sell-side analyst besides KBW has published on the GSEs. obviously i am biased but even if they were to simple outline the bull and bear cases, without making a firm recommendation, it could be very helpful to their customers, much more so than the regular stocks they eagerly write on where 10-50 analysts cover them and the marginal comments are not relevant. many analysts out there in the hedge funds are likely intrigued by a long investment in the FNMA, but often in such a risky situation they need 'cover' from a sell side analyst in order to present an idea to a portfolio manager / investment committee to avoid looking max foolish if the idea goes sour. When researching AIG years ago one of the comments I read from an anonymous hedge fund manager was that he/she saw great value in the AIG shares, but didn’t want to buy them because “I was afraid that if I lost money in AIG again that my clients wouldn’t understand and would leave.” true, this investment isn't for everyone, or even most people. but a sell-side analyst could spend 20 hours on this blog and 10 on a report and become famous -- the networks keep bringing the same people on (rood) to discuss the matter, they'd love a new face. and the analyst wouldn't even have to stick their neck out --- simply lay out 3 scenarios, bull (25-50), bear (0), and base (5-10), throw some odds on each outcome, and presto, out comes a 'neutral' rating. their clients could then re-weight the outcome odds to determine whether to buy, short, or stay away. instead, they will write a report on XYZ company that will get thrown out before reading by 95% of their customers on the blast email list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Anyone see the GSE discussion of FnF on Fox Business about an hour ago? I can't find the video yet and only saw the tail end. James Freeman of WSJ calling for FnF to be wound down and liquidated, protecting taxpayers, CBO estimates moving to pure private would only add small increase to mortgage rates, FnF caused the crisis, etc. He later made additional comments that he hopes at Mnuchin's confirmation hearing, senators will ask him directly if he finally plans to shut down these two behemoths. Bartiromo replies, well that's exactly what he said he was going to do. http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5279352704001/?#sp=show-clips I continue to see multiple stories now regarding Paulson and the FnF stake. Without a doubt he gets grilled on this ,which IMO is going to send the stock soaring or has the potential to destroy recent gains. I also saw that Paulson owns common shares, which I did not realize. I thought he was in prfd. So the million dollar question aside from a Perry decision in the immediate future is, how does he respond to these questions and what future plan does he provide? money honey is not dumb. if she cant figure out GSE reform, then i think that bodes well that most senators will not feel strongly...just crapo (who is in favor of mnuchin), johnson and corker. and corker seems like he is with the trump program as he has been trying to help out tillerson as head of foreign relations committee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 carson, in response to a question by tester today at his hearing, mentioned that he did think the private market could fund a 30year mortgage but that it would take a long time to get there. (tester disagreed). this comment, along with mnuchin's from november, suggest to me that the team might go for a dual track outcome --- with room for all constituencies to win to some degree: the gse's could remain in place, returned to private shareholders, with higher required capital requirements AND there could be new entrants into the market to compete ---- both of which pay the govt for a backstop / reinsurance commitment fee. just a guess...the long term earnings profile for the GSEs would likely look worse than expected in this outcome -- especially if they reduce g-fees back to historical norms. maybe in return the warrants could be altered at a minimum. and preferreds might get their dividends turned back on, maybe after certain capital thresholds are met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Anyone see the GSE discussion of FnF on Fox Business about an hour ago? I can't find the video yet and only saw the tail end. James Freeman of WSJ calling for FnF to be wound down and liquidated, protecting taxpayers, CBO estimates moving to pure private would only add small increase to mortgage rates, FnF caused the crisis, etc. He later made additional comments that he hopes at Mnuchin's confirmation hearing, senators will ask him directly if he finally plans to shut down these two behemoths. Bartiromo replies, well that's exactly what he said he was going to do. http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5279352704001/?#sp=show-clips I continue to see multiple stories now regarding Paulson and the FnF stake. Without a doubt he gets grilled on this ,which IMO is going to send the stock soaring or has the potential to destroy recent gains. I also saw that Paulson owns common shares, which I did not realize. I thought he was in prfd. So the million dollar question aside from a Perry decision in the immediate future is, how does he respond to these questions and what future plan does he provide? money honey is not dumb. if she cant figure out GSE reform, then i think that bodes well that most senators will not feel strongly...just crapo (who is in favor of mnuchin), johnson and corker. and corker seems like he is with the trump program as he has been trying to help out tillerson as head of foreign relations committee... Complete speculation, but knowing that he is going to be attacked and drawn into specifics relating to FnF, wouldn't his best course of action be to blame the current admin. (very Trump style) that they have drained off all profits and capital buffer through the NWS, put taxpayers at enormous risk and completely ignored/trampled on the rights of shareholders (avg. Americans not just HF)? This would unite republicans and put democrats on defense, which fits perfectly with the Trump mantra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Complete speculation, but knowing that he is going to be attacked and drawn into specifics relating to FnF, wouldn't his best course of action be to blame the current admin. (very Trump style) that they have drained off all profits and capital buffer through the NWS, put taxpayers at enormous risk and completely ignored/trampled on the rights of shareholders (avg. Americans not just HF)? This would unite republicans and put democrats on defense, which fits perfectly with the Trump mantra. It also fits perfectly with the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynepolsonAtoZ Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 "Any opinion on above and non-class action shareholders getting left out in the cold?" A troll (possibly Rob Schain) was pestering me about that sort of thing. Really pathetically idiotic. I guess somebody is looking for some more shares to buy, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Complete speculation, but knowing that he is going to be attacked and drawn into specifics relating to FnF, wouldn't his best course of action be to blame the current admin. (very Trump style) that they have drained off all profits and capital buffer through the NWS, put taxpayers at enormous risk and completely ignored/trampled on the rights of shareholders (avg. Americans not just HF)? This would unite republicans and put democrats on defense, which fits perfectly with the Trump mantra. It also fits perfectly with the truth. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardincap Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 It also fits perfectly with the truth. the problem is humans are wired for stories, and the most persuasive stories arent necessarily aligned with the truth (in fact its often the opposite). the "gse caused the crisis" narrative may be The Big Lie, but you cant deny its effectiveness. and unfortunately, the one thing we can be certain of about trump is that he will tell the most compelling story, truth be damned. i think its fair to say that the truth re: fannie and freddie is too complicated and uncomfortable for most people to overcome The Big Lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 "Any opinion on above and non-class action shareholders getting left out in the cold?" A troll (possibly Rob Schain) was pestering me about that sort of thing. Really pathetically idiotic. I guess somebody is looking for some more shares to buy, LOL. I don't know who Rob Schain is, but I do know that you were one of the P's in the PwC case. As an individual investor with a large investment in common and prfd, I have researched everything imaginable with FnF and continue to question my bias daily. You received money as part of the PwC settlement, the suit ended and no other shareholders received anything of value. So I think it's a valid question for anyone not directly involved in the major litigation to ask, is it possible that a settlement is made in the major suits that doesn't benefit all shareholders? After all, this is exactly what happened in your case. If I'm not mistaken, you're also involved in the case against Deloitte? Please explain to me how your participation in a suit and then receiving money while no shareholders benefit nor do they obtain any materials that could be used in other cases has any benefit to myself or any other shareholder not directly involved? For the record, I posed the question on the board given there are some extremely knowledgeable attorneys here, but since you responded, I'm asking you directly so please don't disregard my question to you as "trolling". http://investorsunite.org/federal-judges-listened-carefully-investors-pressed-case/ Clarified at 38:00. I still don't see how your particular situation had any benefit to shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onyx1 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 It also fits perfectly with the truth. the problem is humans are wired for stories, and the most persuasive stories arent necessarily aligned with the truth (in fact its often the opposite). the "gse caused the crisis" narrative may be The Big Lie, but you cant deny its effectiveness. and unfortunately, the one thing we can be certain of about trump is that he will tell the most compelling story, truth be damned. i think its fair to say that the truth re: fannie and freddie is too complicated and uncomfortable for most people to overcome The Big Lie This speaks truth. When it come to articles-of-faith, like politics or religion, simple emotion-based persuasion tactics will always win over facts & reason because the truth is not provable. But, we as shareholders have something that separates us from an article-of-faith issue: The law. The justice system, if working properly, should be able to give facts & reason the proper weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynnstone5 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Anyone see this from yesterday? https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/491?r=23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynepolsonAtoZ Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 "You received money as part of the PwC settlement." Not true. Who are you, the Amazing Kreskin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Pitch Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Anyone see this from yesterday? https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/491?r=23 I think this bill will credit all the profits that was swept from the GSEs. Doubt the bill will pass, but there's already momentum on all fronts. Good luck everyone! 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