Luke 532 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 i was particularly pleased with the energy and conviction he expressed on the call, noting that he has never felt this engaged before (or something to that effect). “I can’t remember being more excited about representing a case.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 @beerBBQ... Ok...lets say that Conservatorship is terminated "into" receivership. What happens in receivership? I have an answer in mind...but im asking you what you think should happen in receivership if it goes to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeerBBQ Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I assume assets would be monetized and proceeds would payoff liabilities with residual, if any, would go to pref and common? under paragraph a of section 4, seems like assets would have to be less than liabilities to terminate conservatorship and become receivership. Obviously under that scenario there wouldn't be anything for shareholders. However, entire company would have to be in run off with sweep in place for that to occur and I'm not sure that is the case now. Not even sure that would be possible given the risk to housing market and impact on economy if run off were enacted and not enough participants would or could fill void. Not sure bond holders would like that strategy either and from what I understand, keeping certain bondholders happy was part of rationale for putting gse's in current situation. I think court cases have a good chance of prevailing and don't think perpetual conservatorship is likely if court challenges fail. So wondering about realistic resolutions that hurt shareholders. Interested in your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 You basically said it...a regular bankruptcy ..the problem is waht to do with all the cash in the meantime? Can anyone think of a "bankruptcy" (that essentially. what receivership is) recently where there was shareholder value? Where the company was making boat loads of cash and just couldn't refinance its debt? And dont tell me is a seceret any more that they are making bank when you get David Woo, global head of currencies at Bank of America Merrill Lynch gets on Bloomberg the other day and says...and I quote "Now that the GSEs are becoming profitable." THE HEAD OF GLOBAL CURRENCIES AT BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH......He said, now repeat with me, "Now that the GSEs are becoming profitable." At least the I banks are figuring this out now. You cant get rid of the GSEs...you cant keep secret just how profitable they are now. I think even if you go the receiver route then they are still going to generate a lot of cash in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Here's a collection of dates to watching in the three big cases. Fairholme v. United States - Court of Federal Claims: January 21, 2016 - Joint status report suggesting future proceedings http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0240.pdf Jacobs v. FHFA - District Court for the District of Delaware: January 16, 2016 - Plaintiff's Response Brief February 16, 2016 - Defendant's Motions to Dismiss will be fully briefed http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Jacobs_Hindes/15-00708-0022.pdf Perry v. Lew - Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit: December 21, 2015 - Appellees' Brief(s) February 2, 2016 - Appellants' Reply Brief(s) February 16, 2016 - Deferred Appendix March 8, 2016 - Final Briefs http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1583683.pdf Been quiet around here. The next week should be very interesting! Discovery should (finally) be completed in the Fairholme case as of 12/31/15; we'll see what the deal is there soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Defendant shall file its response to plaintiff’s motion to compel by no later than Thursday, January 21, 2016. http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0281.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Now is a perfect time to pad positions with the upcoming events and both the common and preferred trading at lows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Now is a perfect time to pad positions with the upcoming events and both the common and preferred trading at lows. +1 I added to FNMAS earlier today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Looks like I was a day too soon :o I got some common and preferred today. Any news out? Both crashing again today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I don't see any news either. Might just be the whims of Mr. Market Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brker_guy Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Perhaps it's because of the buffoons at the WSJ coming up with this little fib of a story: Overheard: Fannie Mae Shares Plummet Wall Street Journal - 14 hours ago Shares of mortgage-finance giant Fannie Mae have plummeted in recent weeks along with the rest of the stock market. As of Wednesday, the....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Ya i saw that. I was just hoping people were smarter than that and giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 A lot of people have access to protected information now. Hopefully it's not someone who is selling or shorting based on what they see there or what they don't see. Hopefully it's not Berkowitz or Perry liquidating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orthopa Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 A lot of people have access to protected information now. Hopefully it's not someone who is selling or shorting based on what they see there or what they don't see. Hopefully it's not Berkowitz or Perry liquidating. FWIW the preferred volume across multiple issues has not been extraordinary as well as the common. If those two were liquidating it would take them months and months to get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 A lot of people have access to protected information now. Hopefully it's not someone who is selling or shorting based on what they see there or what they don't see. Hopefully it's not Berkowitz or Perry liquidating. A lot of parties have lawyers who have access to the protected documents. The clients are still unable to access those documents. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 and yet the GSE's share prices started sliding well before 9/30/14 lamberth decision date. there is no similar decision date looming short term. maybe saxton in iowa case, where plaintiffs are trying to amend complaint under seal by adding fairholme discovery, but that shouldnt move needle unless judge there dismisses lamberth's reasoning, in which case the needle would be moving up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 A lot of people have access to protected information now. Hopefully it's not someone who is selling or shorting based on what they see there or what they don't see. Hopefully it's not Berkowitz or Perry liquidating. A lot of parties have lawyers who have access to the protected documents. The clients are still unable to access those documents. Big difference. That's true. But let's say the lawyers find nothing significant in the documents. All they have to do is somehow communicate that to the investor, and the investor can sell. Or, the lawyer himself can short. Is it considered inside information if you are selling or shorting based on lack of evidence against the government? Given the number of people now involved in this case, it wouldn't surprise me if someone somewhere is doing something wrong, which may not even be legally wrong, but just morally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 could it be this? JPM Suffers a 23 Percent Decline in Residential Lending, but Megabank Continues to Hoard Loans for Balance Sheet By Paul Muolo pmuolo@imfpubs.com JPMorgan Chase originated $24.7 billion of residential loans in the fourth quarter of 2015, a 23.3 percent sequential decline. Compared to the same period a year earlier, fundings were down just 1.2 percent. The nation?s second-largest residential lender and servicer booked mortgage banking income of $266 million during the period, an ugly 55.8 percent drop from the third quarter. Mortgage profits fell 21.3 percent compared to the fourth quarter of 2014. Although both earnings and lending volume suffered, mortgage revenue improved by $125 million from 3Q to $1.68 billion in the fourth quarter. In its 4Q earnings statement, JPM attributed the revenue improvement to ?higher MSR [mortgage servicing rights] risk management and loan growth, partially offset by lower repurchase benefit.? A close look at the megabank?s supplemental info reveals that it continues to add residential whole loans to its balance sheet at an aggressive pace. At Dec. 31, JPM held $157.1 billion of what it calls ?prime mortgages? (including option ARMs), a stunning 48 percent increase over the past 12 months. The entire banking franchise earned $5.4 billion in 4Q, a 20.5 percent drop from 3Q. In the fourth quarter of 2014 it earned $4.9 billion. link http://www.insidemortgagefinance.com/imfnews/1_769/daily/jpm-suffers-large-decline-in-home-mortgage-lending-in-4q-2015-1000035144-1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardincap Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 What are your guys' opinion of timhoward717's credibility? He's been teasing of having some major favorable news but hasn't come through with anything substantial. Wondering what his deal is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch01 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 What are your guys' opinion of timhoward717's credibility? He's been teasing of having some major favorable news but hasn't come through with anything substantial. Wondering what his deal is. Low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 lower than low Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 What are your guys' opinion of timhoward717's credibility? He's been teasing of having some major favorable news but hasn't come through with anything substantial. Wondering what his deal is. Incredibly low. It makes the whole thing fishy and makes me want to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 i have just gotten around to reading the saxton reply to fhfa's motion for dismissal. see https://www.dropbox.com/s/4z467t9hs2o2fc6/saxton%20reply%20to%20motion%20to%20dismiss.html?dl=0 done by an excellent firm in des moines. i have been rather strident in my condemnation of lamberth's opinion, but i love this excerpt: "Defendants’ motions to dismiss rely on Perry Capital LLC v. Lew, 70 F. Supp. 3d 208 (D.D.C. 2014) [lamberth], which rejected claims similar to those at issue here and is currently on appeal before the D.C. Circuit. But the district court’s reasoning in that case is utterly bankrupt, and this court should repudiate it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 i have just gotten around to reading the saxton reply to fhfa's motion for dismissal. see https://www.dropbox.com/s/4z467t9hs2o2fc6/saxton%20reply%20to%20motion%20to%20dismiss.html?dl=0 done by an excellent firm in des moines. i have been rather strident in my condemnation of lamberth's opinion, but i love this excerpt: "Defendants’ motions to dismiss rely on Perry Capital LLC v. Lew, 70 F. Supp. 3d 208 (D.D.C. 2014) [lamberth], which rejected claims similar to those at issue here and is currently on appeal before the D.C. Circuit. But the district court’s reasoning in that case is utterly bankrupt, and this court should repudiate it." this? http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0035.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 yes, thx doug. not sure how i uploaded to dropbox my PACER receipt... 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