investorG Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 I guess taking a step back even from a non shareholder view I would question why would'nt you just do a final amendment and move on? Yes, if there is a path of less resistance and easy way to solve this, why isn't it happening yet. Why wait when the result could be catastrophic? It seems that we're missing something. I agree. The joke appears on us. Mnuchin could have easily highlighted the FnF $100bn+ net govt payday when being plastered on his $500bn fund but he stayed silent. Add this to the list of the Trump team punting for 3.5 years, Ginsburg 2017, Atlas recent silence, SC refusing to take the case this term, Lamberth and Sweeney 2023+ after appeals, Calabria muzzled over NWS illegality post FHFA installation, etc -- and voila jr pref @ 17pct of par and common price below 2016 election date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 $FNMA $FMCC $FNMAS @FHFA hired their legal advisor on Thursday April 2nd. This law firm will provide legal support to developing and implementing the Roadmap to responsibly end the conservatorships. https://t.co/ZgU8VOpiBh Milbank LLP (attached) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Pitch Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 Something is going to happen by May. Non bank servicers are all about to fold and it appears Treasury wants this to happen. Should be bullish for GSEs, but market is pricing in r-ship liquidation. Heads are going to roll soon. I guess taking a step back even from a non shareholder view I would question why would'nt you just do a final amendment and move on? Yes, if there is a path of less resistance and easy way to solve this, why isn't it happening yet. Why wait when the result could be catastrophic? It seems that we're missing something. I agree. The joke appears on us. Mnuchin could have easily highlighted the FnF $100bn+ net govt payday when being plastered on his $500bn fund but he stayed silent. Add this to the list of the Trump team punting for 3.5 years, Ginsburg 2017, Atlas recent silence, SC refusing to take the case this term, Lamberth and Sweeney 2023+ after appeals, Calabria muzzled over NWS illegality post FHFA installation, etc -- and voila jr pref @ 17pct of par and common price below 2016 election date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 Something is going to happen by May. Non bank servicers are all about to fold and it appears Treasury wants this to happen. Should be bullish for GSEs, but market is pricing in r-ship liquidation. Heads are going to roll soon. I guess taking a step back even from a non shareholder view I would question why would'nt you just do a final amendment and move on? Yes, if there is a path of less resistance and easy way to solve this, why isn't it happening yet. Why wait when the result could be catastrophic? It seems that we're missing something. I agree. The joke appears on us. Mnuchin could have easily highlighted the FnF $100bn+ net govt payday when being plastered on his $500bn fund but he stayed silent. Add this to the list of the Trump team punting for 3.5 years, Ginsburg 2017, Atlas recent silence, SC refusing to take the case this term, Lamberth and Sweeney 2023+ after appeals, Calabria muzzled over NWS illegality post FHFA installation, etc -- and voila jr pref @ 17pct of par and common price below 2016 election date. What makes you think something is going to happen in May? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 @MM fat pitch doesnt know what is going to happen, but it will happen in May. swing and miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 FWIW, probably not much, but Moelis and Milbank seem to know each other pretty well. Not a bad thing to have a previous working relationship between legal counsel (Milbank) and preferred-friendly plan architects (Moelis). Attached...Moelis-Milbank_1.jfifMoelis-Milbank_2.jfif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRValue Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 FWIW, probably not much, but Moelis and Milbank seem to know each other pretty well. Not a bad thing to have a previous working relationship between legal counsel (Milbank) and preferred-friendly plan architects (Moelis). Attached... Moelis weren't selected were they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 FWIW, probably not much, but Moelis and Milbank seem to know each other pretty well. Not a bad thing to have a previous working relationship between legal counsel (Milbank) and preferred-friendly plan architects (Moelis). Attached... Moelis weren't selected were they? They're working with UST (selected last week) on something non-GSE related (I think the airlines), and they produced the Blueprint. But this job/RFP was looking for a law firm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 FWIW, probably not much, but Moelis and Milbank seem to know each other pretty well. Not a bad thing to have a previous working relationship between legal counsel (Milbank) and preferred-friendly plan architects (Moelis). Attached... Moelis weren't selected were they? moelis reps us, the good guys (well, actually Paulson and Blackstone, but on such shoulders we stand). Houlihan Lokey and Milbank (legal) rep FHFA. these guys all know each other. cant wait for Milbank to tell FHFA litigation counsel Arnold & Porter to STFU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 cant wait for Milbank to tell FHFA litigation counsel Arnold & Porter to STFU How do you mean, exactly? In terms of potential settlement negotiations or A&P's approach to the litigation as a whole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 cant wait for Milbank to tell FHFA litigation counsel Arnold & Porter to STFU How do you mean, exactly? In terms of potential settlement negotiations or A&P's approach to the litigation as a whole? at some point the center of gravity regarding legal matters at fhfa should shift from litigation (Arnold & Porter, Kaye Scholer) to settlement (first preparation, then execution) (Milbank). I am not suggesting that Milbank will be substituted as litigation counsel of record (though that would make perfect sense). I am suggesting that fhfa will need a coherent strategy going forward, in which the litigation hand works in harmony (or at least not at cross purposes) with the settlement hand. I have no idea whether anyone at fhfa is experienced enough to know how to run a deal process, but it sure doesnt involve having litigation counsel sit outside the settlement loop and do things that are counterproductive. until Milbank was hired, there was no one at fhfa telling litigation counsel what to do. now I have to believe that Milbank will make sure it is the last voice of advice heard by fhfa going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 at some point the center of gravity regarding legal matters at fhfa should shift from litigation (Arold & Porter, Kaye Scholer) to settlement (first preparation, then execution) (Milbank). I am not suggesting that Milbank will be substituted as litigation counsel of record (though that would make perfect sense). I am suggesting that fhfa will need a coherent strategy going forward, in which the litigation hand works in harmony (or at least not at cross purposes) with the settlement hand. I have no idea whether anyone at fhfa is experienced enough to know how to run a deal process, but it sure doesnt involve having litigation counsel sit outside the settlement loop and do things that are counterproductive. until Milbank was hired, there was no one at fhfa telling litigation counsel what to do. now I have to believe that Milbank will make sure it is the last voice of advice heard by fhfa going forward. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 cant wait for Milbank to tell FHFA litigation counsel Arnold & Porter to STFU How do you mean, exactly? In terms of potential settlement negotiations or A&P's approach to the litigation as a whole? at some point the center of gravity regarding legal matters at fhfa should shift from litigation (Arnold & Porter, Kaye Scholer) to settlement (first preparation, then execution) (Milbank). I am not suggesting that Milbank will be substituted as litigation counsel of record (though that would make perfect sense). I am suggesting that fhfa will need a coherent strategy going forward, in which the litigation hand works in harmony (or at least not at cross purposes) with the settlement hand. I have no idea whether anyone at fhfa is experienced enough to know how to run a deal process, but it sure doesnt involve having litigation counsel sit outside the settlement loop and do things that are counterproductive. until Milbank was hired, there was no one at fhfa telling litigation counsel what to do. now I have to believe that Milbank will make sure it is the last voice of advice heard by fhfa going forward. Great point. Next will be capital rule, then we should get FnF hiring their financial advisers. Relative to the progress (albeit very slow) the share price has never been so low to what seems to be reality. Biggest question mark is timing but the end result seems to be more and more clear. Granted I have become frustrated regarding the length of this investment but added recently twice. Even in light of the market down turn where else can you get 4-5 times your money in the next 12-18 months? I have given up reading the tea leaves with this investment but what is happening with the servicers is very telling. Calabria turned his back and told those concerned his job is to conserve and restore FnFs capital. Mnuchin is very quiet on the issue also. What better way to convince the last group of doubters then to hold their feet to the fire? We may have to dodge the hedge fund narrative eventually but the FnF should go away crowd should be silenced pretty good going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 "Calabria turned his back and told those concerned his job is to conserve and restore FnFs capital. Mnuchin is very quiet on the issue also." capital has become king, and the GSEs have some and are busy building it, and they now have a conservator who cares about this, and the servicers dont have it. and as usual on wall st, money talks and BS (I am looking at you Chris Whalen) walks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 "Calabria turned his back and told those concerned his job is to conserve and restore FnFs capital. Mnuchin is very quiet on the issue also." capital has become king, and the GSEs have some and are busy building it, and they now have a conservator who cares about this, and the servicers dont have it. and as usual on wall st, money talks and BS (I am looking at you Chris Whalen) walks. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/06/coronavirus-bailout-there-is-going-to-be-complete-chaos-mortgage-ceo.html "In an interview Wednesday on CNBC, Mark Calabria, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, said he estimated about 2 million borrowers would seek forbearance by May. He did not agree that servicers need liquidity now, only later. “If this goes beyond two or three months, and we start to get worse than that, then that’s going to be a lot of strain, and certainly we’re going to start to see some firms get into a lot of liquidity trouble,” Calabria said." “Throwing this out there without showing evidence of hardship was an outrageous move, outrageous,” said David Stevens, who headed the Federal Housing Administration during the subprime mortgage crisis and is a former CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association. “The administration made a huge mistake bringing moral hazard in and thrust extraordinary risk into the private sector that could collapse the mortgage market.” Stevens said borrowers should have been required to show at least some proof of hardship, which they had to do during subprime mortgage bailout. Moral hazard aside, he, too, contended a liquidity facility for servicers is essential. “This is a crisis so easily correctable,” he said. “The GSEs [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] for years have always assured the servicing community that in the event of a major credit event, they’ll be there to make sure they provide the liquidity. From what we are hearing, and we can’t verify it, the FHFA director instructed the GSEs not to set up a liquidity or advance facility.” When asked for a response to the industry plea, Calabria on Monday declined to comment. Man talk about turning a deaf ear! Holy Shit. Go Calabria! Stevens wants liquidity now! LOL He didnt want them to recap and fought it for years! If it wasnt super obvious why this is happening it is now. Justice is being served. Calabria told Stevens to go play with a bag of dicks lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 Man talk about turning a deaf ear! Holy Shit. Go Calabria! Stevens wants liquidity now! LOL He didnt want them to recap and fought it for years! If it wasnt super obvious why this is happening it is now. Justice is being served. Don't be surprised if the political opposition to recapitalize the GSE's is virtually gone as a result. Both sides of the aisle very likely see the need for a well-capitalized Fannie and Freddie. Stevens might still object, but nobody with half a brain will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 Latest from Josh Rosner... Please see GF&Co's report on #mortgage #Servicers #FHA #FHFA #GSEs & the #CaresAct: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Covid-19_Survivor Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 Latest from Josh Rosner... Please see GF&Co's report on #mortgage #Servicers #FHA #FHFA #GSEs & the #CaresAct: Quite the reach by GrahamFisher. Although I'll admit to not knowing if the legal definition of "attest" is different to how I understand the word, that section reads pretty clear. It's totally up to the homeowner, and "hardship" is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Covid-19_Survivor Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/04/06/mortgage-industry-sounds-alarm-over-coronavirus-mortgage-bailout.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 Latest from Josh Rosner... Please see GF&Co's report on #mortgage #Servicers #FHA #FHFA #GSEs & the #CaresAct: One concern of mine has been that people would take 12 months of not paying their mortgage even if economy opens back up in 2 months. However, Rosner's piece says that the forbearance assistance is only "during the covered period." Can anybody confirm that the "covered period" officially ends when Trump declares we're no longer in a national emergency? Does "national emergency" = "covered period"? Logic would say it does, but I want to be 100% sure. Thanks. Another way to put it, is there a chance "covered period" could mean the 180 days + 180 days and NOT be tied to the status of whether we're in a national emergency or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 Latest from Josh Rosner... Please see GF&Co's report on #mortgage #Servicers #FHA #FHFA #GSEs & the #CaresAct: One concern of mine has been that people would take 12 months of not paying their mortgage even if economy opens back up in 2 months. However, Rosner's piece says that the forbearance assistance is only "during the covered period." Can anybody confirm that the "covered period" officially ends when Trump declares we're no longer in a national emergency? Does "national emergency" = "covered period"? Logic would say it does, but I want to be 100% sure. Thanks. Another way to put it, is there a chance "covered period" could mean the 180 days + 180 days and NOT be tied to the status of whether we're in a national emergency or not? I don't have the verbiage per verbatim in front of me but the bill did say that it was while we were in a national emergency. I do remember reading that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 I don't have the verbiage per verbatim in front of me but the bill did say that it was while we were in a national emergency. I do remember reading that. Excellent, thank you. Not sure how I missed that. That alleviates one of my concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 I don't have the verbiage per verbatim in front of me but the bill did say that it was while we were in a national emergency. I do remember reading that. Excellent, thank you. Not sure how I missed that. That alleviates one of my concerns. I know checking twitter is a broad statement but I think maybe Holdenwalker sp? Had a screenshot of the verbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 Latest from Josh Rosner... Please see GF&Co's report on #mortgage #Servicers #FHA #FHFA #GSEs & the #CaresAct: One concern of mine has been that people would take 12 months of not paying their mortgage even if economy opens back up in 2 months. However, Rosner's piece says that the forbearance assistance is only "during the covered period." Can anybody confirm that the "covered period" officially ends when Trump declares we're no longer in a national emergency? Does "national emergency" = "covered period"? Logic would say it does, but I want to be 100% sure. Thanks. Another way to put it, is there a chance "covered period" could mean the 180 days + 180 days and NOT be tied to the status of whether we're in a national emergency or not? as I recall "covered period" was earlier of i) declaration that emergency was over and ii) end of 2020...though the forbearance period can be up to 12 months, which is inconsistent with that. frankly, the forbearance period will be whatever the servicers agree to, and they will want as short a period as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 thx, cherzeca. 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