Jump to content

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


twacowfca

Recommended Posts

We may be underestimating the role of Brian Brooks.

 

At some point, his name made the circles as one possible Under Secretary of Treasury. According to Joe Light, he has actually become an unofficial emissary spearheading a specific housing goal straight from the inside. And we already know he is a Mnuchin's man.

 

Even if JL/Bloomberg aim is to undermine administrative action by exposing illegal lobbying, how likely are they to succeed when the most important congress actors are hitting the exit door and the appetite for a new, more stringent Jumpstart is probably missing? If Brian Brooks has really been knocking doors for months now maybe there is some sense of urgency somewhere in the administration. As in "no need to wait for another Congress".

 

this is a vague anti-lobbying rule and likely an infringement on free speech rights, certainly of the individual if not also the institution.

 

Infinitely hypocritical that Joe Light would ever call anyone out for illegal lobbying. How about lobbying under the guise of journalism? What's the law say about that. Absolute farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 16.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I believe in one document among the miriad of documents produced in the many lawsuits Joe Light shows up as *access* journalist with a direct line to Treasury. That is, Obama's T. Maybe he still thinks he has that privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-22/groundhog-day-at-fannie-freddie-where-the-fix-is-always-tomorrow

 

Like clockwork. Here is the kill-the-rally article we were all expecting. Joe Light's timing is always marvelous. Or is it Treasury's?

 

If you want an article that attempts to kill the rally, look no further than this. Ideologically fueled nonsense that starts with the assumption that FnF were a cause of the financial crisis, and manages to assert that the proper way to run a federal conservatorship is to shrink the companies' footprint.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/norbertmichel/2018/05/22/is-mel-watt-setting-up-another-bailout/#2e174f861572

 

I thought Joe Light's piece was actually rather informative, and not slanted against shareholders as he sometimes is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-22/groundhog-day-at-fannie-freddie-where-the-fix-is-always-tomorrow

 

Like clockwork. Here is the kill-the-rally article we were all expecting. Joe Light's timing is always marvelous. Or is it Treasury's?

 

If you want an article that attempts to kill the rally, look no further than this. Ideologically fueled nonsense that starts with the assumption that FnF were a cause of the financial crisis, and manages to assert that the proper way to run a federal conservatorship is to shrink the companies' footprint.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/norbertmichel/2018/05/22/is-mel-watt-setting-up-another-bailout/#2e174f861572

 

I thought Joe Light's piece was actually rather informative, and not slanted against shareholders as he sometimes is.

 

I agree I learned something. I think we know why the RNC piece means/has meant nothing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-22/groundhog-day-at-fannie-freddie-where-the-fix-is-always-tomorrow

 

Like clockwork. Here is the kill-the-rally article we were all expecting. Joe Light's timing is always marvelous. Or is it Treasury's?

 

If you want an article that attempts to kill the rally, look no further than this. Ideologically fueled nonsense that starts with the assumption that FnF were a cause of the financial crisis, and manages to assert that the proper way to run a federal conservatorship is to shrink the companies' footprint.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/norbertmichel/2018/05/22/is-mel-watt-setting-up-another-bailout/#2e174f861572

 

I thought Joe Light's piece was actually rather informative, and not slanted against shareholders as he sometimes is.

Joe Light's: "with no end in sight, why hold?" So both paths lead to Rome. But you are right, Forbes' is nothing but vague.

 

This administration has proven they aren't backing off from goals they have set in spite of resistance. If one of these is to get the companies out of government control they will railroad anybody/everybody no matter how many articles are published to shape public (or Congress) opinion. We just don't know if this specific goal continues to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool. With a couple of thousands like this perhaps there is an answer. Let's just make sure any new complaint is against Freddie Mac and not Freddie Max.

 

I see what you did there  ;D

 

Inside the last article: http://gselinks.com/pdf/Govt_Perfidy_Angel.pdf

 

III. Conclusion

 

Accordingly, a national bank may invest in perpetual preferred

stock issued by Fannie Mae and by Freddie Max. This investment

is not subject to quantitative limits on the amount of such stock

that the bank may hold, but the amount is subject to safety and

soundness considerations, including the prudential controls noted

above.” (Comptroller of The Currency Interpretive Letter #931, p.

2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool. With a couple of thousands like this perhaps there is an answer. Let's just make sure any new complaint is against Freddie Mac and not Freddie Max.

 

I see what you did there  ;D

 

Inside the last article: http://gselinks.com/pdf/Govt_Perfidy_Angel.pdf

 

III. Conclusion

 

Accordingly, a national bank may invest in perpetual preferred

stock issued by Fannie Mae and by Freddie Max. This investment

is not subject to quantitative limits on the amount of such stock

that the bank may hold, but the amount is subject to safety and

soundness considerations, including the prudential controls noted

above.” (Comptroller of The Currency Interpretive Letter #931, p.

2)

 

Yeah, I know.  That's why I laughed.  Somebody filing a suit that can't even get the name of the company correct is surely to do well  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for posting this.

 

This lawsuit is a strange bird. It's nothing like any of the others. It seems to hinge on the idea that the junior pref dividends were actually obligations when the company had the ability to pay them (starting January 1, 2013) because of something called the "FG Implicit Guaranty" that I still don't quite understand. The complaint doesn't seek an injunction against the NWS, just the payment of back dividends starting January 1, 2013 plus interest and compensatory damages.

 

I don't see how the case won't simply fall apart by the judge saying "well, the junior pref stock certificates do say that they're non-cumulative, why should you get back dividends?"

 

The complaint tries to have things both ways, saying that the junior pref dividends are obligations, but that the NWS dividends were declared by the boards in their sole discretion, implying that they were optional. Or maybe he means that both types of dividends should have either been considered mandatory or optional, instead of Treasury getting the best of both worlds?

 

Yeah, I know.  That's why I laughed.  Somebody filing a suit that can't even get the name of the company correct is surely to do well  :)

 

What's even stranger is that all Angel had to do is copy and paste from the original document, which didn't have the typo.

 

https://www.occ.gov/topics/licensing/interpretations-and-actions/2002/int931.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody here think that throwing lawsuits to the wall to see what sticks may actually be someone's plan to portray shareholders as frivolous clowns hoping for a windfall?

 

Wait... isn't that what we are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody here think that throwing lawsuits to the wall to see what sticks may actually be someone's plan to portray shareholders as frivolous clowns hoping for a windfall?

 

Wait... isn't that what we are?

 

Yes. Bob Corker told me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody here think that throwing lawsuits to the wall to see what sticks may actually be someone's plan to portray shareholders as frivolous clowns hoping for a windfall?

 

Wait... isn't that what we are?

 

Speak for yourself and keep on trolling!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Mel Watt tells Congress "told you so" on #Fannie/#Freddie Q1 draw, hints that working with *Mnuchin* is the way to avoid future draws. Adds: "this could well be the last time I appear before this Committee as Director of FHFA"

 

"Too many guarantors will create a race to the bottom"- Mel Watt

 

Anybody else find this part interesting? hints that working with Mnuchin is the way to avoid future draws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Mel Watt tells Congress "told you so" on #Fannie/#Freddie Q1 draw, hints that working with *Mnuchin* is the way to avoid future draws. Adds: "this could well be the last time I appear before this Committee as Director of FHFA"

 

"Too many guarantors will create a race to the bottom"- Mel Watt

 

also talks about releasing some papers in the near future related to capital requirements

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody here think that throwing lawsuits to the wall to see what sticks may actually be someone's plan to portray shareholders as frivolous clowns hoping for a windfall?

 

Wait... isn't that what we are?

 

Speak for yourself and keep on trolling!

I have been invested on this for close to 8 years, probably done more research than you and may even have more shares than you. Where is your sense of humor? After so much time and struggle a bit of humor can offer relief and a laugh is what I aimed for. But if you insist on being manly we can discuss our differences in person. I live in Miami Beach, FL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Mel Watt tells Congress "told you so" on #Fannie/#Freddie Q1 draw, hints that working with *Mnuchin* is the way to avoid future draws. Adds: "this could well be the last time I appear before this Committee as Director of FHFA"

 

"Too many guarantors will create a race to the bottom"- Mel Watt

 

also talks about releasing some papers in the near future related to capital requirements

 

Mel Watt Full written statement

https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Director%20Watt%20Written%20Statement%2005222018.pdf

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...