tede02 Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 This sure does make you wonder what is happening behind the scenes. Politically, I suspect that neither the White House or members of Congress want any headlines to the effect of "hedge-funds earn millions/billions in legal victory against Treasury". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 This sure does make you wonder what is happening behind the scenes. Politically, I suspect that neither the White House or members of Congress want any headlines to the effect of "hedge-funds earn millions/billions in legal victory against Treasury". And I'm sure they wouldn't mind a headline to the effect of "taxpayers earn $200 billion profit on Fannie/Freddie bailout" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 At this point, the risk/reward the market is assigning to FNMAS doesn't seem to make much sense. I like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 You know I re-read the original Forensic Look by Adam Spittler and Micke Cklin last night. I think about the Ugoletti testimony, the other testimonies, former White House National Economic Council senior adviser Jim Parrott deposition. What if in some of these depositions they lie under oath? Is that even possible these days? And all i can think is that this just screams House of cards style scandal. All you need is a whistle blower to come out and talk about whats in the redacted documents. Just imagine that. Start up the hearings. If I were the Republicans thats exactly what i would want, especially in an election year. Yeah it'd be nice to screw over hedge funds and reap the tax payers $200B. Thats good fantastic. But I gatta think, What better way to get you street cred than going after the Obama administration for breaking the 5th amendment, a massive Enron style accounting scandal....not by business but by insiders at the Treasury and with the Obama administration knowledge(maybe, maybe not). I mean thats some Iran–Contra shit right there. Then on top of all that you can sit down and say...Look at us were pro-business, pro home owner, pro Constitution. You can now have something to really taint his legacy. Shit it might even be grounds for impeachment. Again a bit conspiracy theoryish but i dont think its all that impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tede02 Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 This sure does make you wonder what is happening behind the scenes. Politically, I suspect that neither the White House or members of Congress want any headlines to the effect of "hedge-funds earn millions/billions in legal victory against Treasury". And I'm sure they wouldn't mind a headline to the effect of "taxpayers earn $200 billion profit on Fannie/Freddie bailout" I absolutely agree. I understand doughishere's point, but don't see any repubs taking this angle. Populism is sweeping across the US as evidenced by the leading candidates (on both sides) for president. I don't think politicians of either side want ANY association (real, imagined, direct, or indirect) with hedge-funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 This sure does make you wonder what is happening behind the scenes. Politically, I suspect that neither the White House or members of Congress want any headlines to the effect of "hedge-funds earn millions/billions in legal victory against Treasury". And I'm sure they wouldn't mind a headline to the effect of "taxpayers earn $200 billion profit on Fannie/Freddie bailout" I absolutely agree. I understand doughishere's point, but don't see any repubs taking this angle. Populism is sweeping across the US as evidenced by the leading candidates (on both sides) for president. I don't think politicians of either side want ANY association (real, imagined, direct, or indirect) with hedge-funds. Who cares about the hedge funds, at worst you are netural towards them. You dona atta boy them publicly....You get to do what youve been trying to do for the last 8 years..screw over the Obama administration. What better way to play the populism part then to get up in front of the people and say "Look at Obama, he wants to take away your business without just compensation?" You think Joe the plumbers is gonna hate the hedge fund guy or Obama more? Even Libertarians like Richard Epstein dont like what Obama has done despite not exactly loving Fannie and Freddie. I think Epstien even says that him self somewhere. If you can convert the Libertarians you can get the far right. I hate to get into this. Its more of a political discussion and its my experience that Value Investors stay away from politics as much as possible....but it is pretty juicy. The other thing that got me thinking about this is how Bethany Mclean talks about this on the few clips ive seen from her....Enron was before my time so all i have to go off is google searches, books and vids. But man, she looks like shes been down this road before. A friend of mine uses the quote "Where theres smoke, theres fire." Normally I hate it, I like to see the fire before i shout it but...... maybe im just getting too excited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Nick Timiraos reoportedit was blocked this morning. Could anyone please help me understand how congress works? Who is Sherrod Brown? Why can this senator along block a bill? Does he have super voting power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Nick Timiraos reoportedit was blocked this morning. I think Nick is just re-iterating that Sherrod Brown has a hold on the bill. Could anyone please help me understand how congress works? Who is Sherrod Brown? Why can this senator along block a bill? Does he have super voting power? Your first question would take too long to answer. Senator Brown sits on a committee that governs bills having to do with banking and housing, and therefore, he has the ability to put an indefinite hold on a bill that prevents it from coming up for a vote. It has nothing to do with voting power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 I wouldn't spend too much time on the forensic accounting discussing whether Fannie & Freddie needed the bailout in 2008 -- as a legal matter, it's irrelevant because the board consented to the conservatorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Merk, i get it. I sound like the crazy bird lady. And I will be the first to admit there is no evidence. Is there anything that crazy about what's said in the forensic doc even if the dir signed off on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Bethany McLean was on npr during rush hour today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Is there anything that crazy about what's said in the forensic doc even if the dir signed off on it? I don't understand the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch01 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Merk, i get it. I sound like the crazy bird lady. And I will be the first to admit there is no evidence. Is there anything that crazy about what's said in the forensic doc even if the dir signed off on it? Don't know about crazy, but a little odd, yes. "Why did federal regulators design a financial support program for Fannie and Freddie on the basis of academic estimates of future performance rather than tried and true statutory accounting and claims-paying ability (which is the standard for all regulated mortgage insurers)?" http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Reports/FAIRX2015SemiAnnual.pdf This non-lawyer agrees with merkhet: from a legal perspective this doesn't seem relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brker_guy Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Looks like Elizabeth Warren saw the lights: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-14/senator-warren-said-to-pull-support-for-fannie-shareholder-bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Ive poststed this in a number of forums. Page 41 of Bethany McLeans book states... "A member of the group that sets federal accounting guidelines later explained that government wasn't actually going to exercise its right to take ownership of Fannie and Freddie. Instead, the bailout was designed this way because "driving the stock market value to zero" would "prevent current shareholder speculation resulting in speculators taking advantage of government intervention at the expense of others," according to the minutes of the meeting that became public in 2015" What meeting was this? Where are those minutes located? Anyone know? I got a little outta hand yesterday....apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch01 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Ive poststed this in a number of forums. Page 41 of Bethany McLeans book states... "A member of the group that sets federal accounting guidelines later explained that government wasn't actually going to exercise its right to take ownership of Fannie and Freddie. Instead, the bailout was designed this way because "driving the stock market value to zero" would "prevent current shareholder speculation resulting in speculators taking advantage of government intervention at the expense of others," according to the minutes of the meeting that became public in 2015" What meeting was this? Where are those minutes located? Anyone know? I got a little outta hand yesterday....apologies. http://www.fasab.gov/pdffiles/oct08mins.pdf http://www.fasab.gov/pdffiles/dec08mins.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Thanks enoch. Howd you get that so quickly? Edit: my google skills seem to be lacking along with my cross referencing skills. These quotes are nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 This is fantastic... Columbia Global Reports and 'Shaky Ground' Launch Event Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 From the Tweeter michelle celarier @mcelarier 31m31 minutes ago Bill Ackman and Bethany McLean on Charlie Rose tonight to discuss #shakyground and fanniegate Charlie Rose is always good. Watched Justice Breyer last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 This is fantastic... Columbia Global Reports and 'Shaky Ground' Launch Event McLean on CNBC earlier today... http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000420067&play=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 I'm a big fan of Ackman and McLean, and have high hopes for these cases against the Govt. But, I don't think the argument that F&F have no capital is a great one. They have unlimited capital in the form of full backing of the U.S. Government borrowing capabilities and printing press. It's not like they'd be left for dead in the event of a crisis, assuming this status quo remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 I'm a big fan of Ackman and McLean, and have high hopes for these cases against the Govt. But, I don't think the argument that F&F have no capital is a great one. They have unlimited capital in the form of full backing of the U.S. Government borrowing capabilities and printing press. It's not like they'd be left for dead in the event of a crisis, assuming this status quo remains. That sums up the $400B argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 I'm a big fan of Ackman and McLean, and have high hopes for these cases against the Govt. But, I don't think the argument that F&F have no capital is a great one. They have unlimited capital in the form of full backing of the U.S. Government borrowing capabilities and printing press. It's not like they'd be left for dead in the event of a crisis, assuming this status quo remains. That sums up the $400B argument. Just saying that I think there are many great reasons to be bullish: violation of 5th amendment, illegal under Delaware law, the dangerous precedent set, the risk of public release of documents. But the lack of capital is not a real problem when you're backed by unlimited funding when needed. Makes for great talking points though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 I'm a big fan of Ackman and McLean, and have high hopes for these cases against the Govt. But, I don't think the argument that F&F have no capital is a great one. They have unlimited capital in the form of full backing of the U.S. Government borrowing capabilities and printing press. It's not like they'd be left for dead in the event of a crisis, assuming this status quo remains. That sums up the $400B argument. Just saying that I think there are many great reasons to be bullish: violation of 5th amendment, illegal under Delaware law, the dangerous precedent set, the risk of public release of documents. But the lack of capital is not a real problem when you're backed by unlimited funding when needed. Makes for great talking points though. The lack of capital is the political argument that gets them airtime because most tax-payers who bailed out companies once don't look so favorably at the possibility of having to do it again. The networth sweep eliminates any chance that the GSEs could ever recapitalize on their own and leaves taxpayers on the hook for bailout after bailout after bailout every time the economy hits a rough patch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Agree to agree with both of you. Good to see it all getting some air time though. McLean is really well spoken. A lot of guys i talk to here in chicago dont like Ackman because he comes off abrasively. She kinda has a demeanor to her that people will listen to. 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